Balancing Identity, Inclusion and Engagement: Lessons from the Fearless Physical Activity Program for Adults with Congenital Heart Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background This study explores the experiences and perceptions of adults with congenital heart disease (ACHD) who participated in the Fearless Physical Activity program, a community-based initiative aimed at promoting physical activity in CHD patients.Methods Using a qualitative research design, 27 participants were recruited and participated in semi-structured interviews.Results Thematic analysis revealed key factors influencing participation, including identity, social inclusion and program design.Discussion The study concludes that future ACHD-specific programs must address the diverse needs of ACHD patients, offering adaptable activities, consistent scheduling and clearer communication.Translation to Health Education Practice This study informs several Areas of Responsibility for health education specialists. Area I (Assessment) is addressed by identifying identity-related barriers to participation. Area II (Planning) highlights the need to co-design inclusive programs with ACHD patients. Area IV (Evaluation and Research) is supported through the use of qualitative methods to assess program impact. Lastly, Areas VI (Advocacy) and VII (Communication) emphasize the importance of clear messaging and advocating for inclusive, sustainable program funding.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".