Physical Activity Together for MS: Quality Participation Experiences of People With Multiple Sclerosis and Their Caregivers in a Dyadic Physical Activity Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite unequivocal evidence for the benefits of regular physical activity (PA), many people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and their family caregivers find it challenging to fully participate to the same extent as the general population. Achieving full participation in PA requires addressing both quantity and quality of participation. Although elements fostering quality participation (QP) in people with disabilities are increasingly recognized, our knowledge of how QP is experienced and fostered in dyadic PA interventions targeting MS dyads is limited. Therefore, we aimed to explore QP experiences of MS dyads during a 12-week, group-based, dyadic, behavioral PA intervention to inform future efforts to optimize full participation in PA in these groups. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews with 6 participants who completed the dyadic intervention. Data were inductively analyzed using thematic analysis and deductively mapped to the Quality Parasport Participation Framework. RESULTS: We identified 6 themes mapped to the 6 building blocks (autonomy, belonging, challenge, engagement, mastery, and meaning) of quality participation that provide insights into how people with MS and their caregivers experienced QP in the intervention. Additionally, various intervention characteristics that fostered QP experiences were identified, including the dyadic approach, program duration, financial incentivization, individualized tailoring of program components, group composition and dynamics, facilitator knowledge and expertise related to MS and caregiving, and the opportunity for participants to apply the knowledge gained in the group sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings outline QP considerations for researchers and interventionists designing dyadic PA programs in MS, offering insights that can inform the development of such programs to support full participation for both people with MS and their caregivers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".