“Guidelines… yeah, they just haven’t felt relevant to me.” A qualitative exploration of chiropractors’ perspectives on physical activity promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundGlobally, almost one-third of adults are considered physically inactive. Chiropractors knownly promote physical activity (PA) within their musculoskeletal management plans, despite their limited PA and sedentary behavior (SB) guideline knowledge.ObjectiveTo deepen our understanding of chiropractors' perspectives, including factors that may influence PA promotion. Specifically our objectives are to (1) explore chiropractors' knowledge of PA guidelines, (2) examine chiropractors' practices in PA assessment and advice, and (3) identify barriers, enablers, and factors influencing PA promotion in chiropractic.MethodsTwenty registered Australian chiropractors were interviewed to understand their perspectives on promoting PA in practice. We used a qualitative descriptive approach with inductive content analysis to identify patterns and themes.ResultsFour themes captured chiropractors' perspectives regarding PA: (1) chiropractors striving to take a person-centered approach to PA promotion, (2) chiropractors had limited knowledge of the PA/SB guidelines, (3) chiropractors relied on their personal intuitions and experience to try and be PA role models for their patients, and (4) chiropractors identified important enablers including longer appointment time and patient motivation as well as barriers such as limited knowledge, skill and time. Chiropractors identified interest and motivation as patient barriers.ConclusionChiropractors have limited PA/SB guideline knowledge but nevertheless report being confident, safe and person-centered with respect to PA promotion, often relying on their own experiences to be PA role models for their patients. Supporting behavior change among chiropractors, while addressing time constraints and patient motivation are important considerations.
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 | 0.019 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".