Promoting physical activity among community-dwelling seniors living in a Francophone rural area in New Brunswick: a pre-implementation qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to gather an in-depth understanding of Francophone community-dwelling seniors' needs and expectations regarding physical activity to inform the design and implementation of a community-based program in a rural area in New Brunswick. Methods: Using the socioecological model, a qualitative design was co-created and an interview guide co-developed to collect data from 24 participants, including two focus groups and 13 individual interviews. Content analyses were carried out to categorize and conceptualize the data into main and subthemes. Results: Four major themes emerged, including the presence of challenges and barriers (community and environmental obstacles, personal challenges, and social or cultural challenges), motivators and incentives (demographics, understanding the benefits of the program, sense of belonging, and preferred physical activities), designing program infrastructure (How, What, Where, time of offer, evaluation of capabilities, feelings of familiarity), and strategies to improve recruitment and retention (what would best allow participants to join and remain in the program). The findings of this study highlighted the key challenges community-dwelling seniors living in a rural area face in participating in physical activity programs (i.e., personal issues, geographic aspects, the importance of physical capacities, and cultural trends). Conclusion: While codesigning physical activity programs for community-dwelling seniors living in rural areas is time-consuming, it allows for a better understanding of the social and organizational assets and challenges of the target community. It also strategically contributes to managers' ownership and community engagement of/for the program to support its implementation and promotion.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".