Behaviour Change Considerations to Promote Physical Activity Participation among Individuals with Quiescent Inflammatory Bowel Disease: Barriers and Facilitators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Most individuals with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) do not engage in optimum levels of physical activity (PA). This study aimed to identify important factors to consider when promoting PA participation among individuals with quiescent or mildly active IBD. Methods: In this qualitative description study, we purposively enrolled 15 Manitobans with quiescent IBD. Data was collected via semi-structured interviews conducted on Zoom. Using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behaviour (COM-B) model, we elicited factors that influence PA behaviour. We performed thematic analysis of transcribed interviews using NVivo. Results: Participants' (N = 15) ages ranged between 20 and 37 years, majority were female (n = 8), and most had a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis (UC) (n = 10). None was a current smoker. Thematic analysis identified persistent symptoms, PA engagement prior to IBD diagnosis, PA routine, coping strategies and determination as themes that influenced 'capability' for PA participation. Social support, type of employment, bathroom access, and finances influenced 'opportunity'. Awareness of the benefits of PA on IBD, relevant knowledge, social support, and personal goals promoted 'motivation' for PA participation. Sex differences were noted in participants' perspectives related to safety concerns and the social context of workout spaces. Conclusion: Using the COM-B model, we elicited barriers (including IBD-related persistent symptoms, lack of knowledge of PA) and facilitators (social support, coping strategies, ability to track PA progress) that influence PA behaviour among adults with quiescent IBD. These factors are important considerations when promoting PA participation among individuals with IBD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".