Physical literacy among older adults: how feasible is this in the Nigerian context? A qualitative exploration of the concept among physiotherapists
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Despite global efforts to promote physical activity as a beneficial social intervention for improving health and social outcomes, physical activity participation remains low in many developing countries. However, physical literacy offers a promising strategy to enhance engagement in physical activities among older adults in these regions, including Nigeria.Purpose The study explored how Nigerian physiotherapists perceive the assessment of physical literacy to guide intervention among older adults with low health literacy.Method We employed an exploratory qualitative design, guided by The International Physical Literacy Association's Physical Literacy Framework. We purposefully invited 20 Nigerian physiotherapists, each with a minimum of five years of clinical experience working with older adults, to participate in either face-to-face or Zoom video call semi-structured interviews. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Multiple coders conducted the data analysis using a thematic analysis approach.Findings Our findings highlighted four key themes encompassing utilizing culturally interactive methods, providing culturally relevant patient education, offering comprehensive support that extends beyond physical activity-focused rehabilitation, and incorporating routine assessments and feedback, as perceived methods of assessing physical literacy in Nigeria.Conclusion While physical literacy represents a promising concept in Nigeria, its successful implementation will necessitate further cultural adaptation of interactive methods, along with an acknowledgment of the inherent challenges associated with its application in the Nigerian context. Future research should first attempt to culturally translating physical literacy in the Nigerian context.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".