How do individuals with spinal cord injury practice mindfulness? Barriers & facilitators to practicing mindfulness and considerations for tailoring programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This qualitative study aims to understand how individuals with SCI experience and participate in mindfulness, including identifying barriers and facilitators to participation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A qualitative descriptive approach following the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist was implemented. Participants partook in one-on-one telephone interviews which explored their experiences with mindfulness. Interviews were recorded and transcribed. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo. RESULTS: 22 participants from the United States and Canada participated. The majority were female, between 28-67 years old. Two main themes and six sub-themes were identified. The first main theme related to perceived experiences and anticipated benefits related to practicing mindfulness (e.g. reduced muscle tension, reduced stress, social connection). Sub-themes included: physical benefits, mental benefits, social/interpersonal benefits, and mind and/or body awareness. The second main theme related to perceived barriers to practicing mindfulness (e.g. misconceptions of mindfulness, language and cues) and mitigating strategies (e.g. education, permissive rather than prescriptive language). Sub-themes included awareness and understanding of mindfulness and accessibility. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence for content and language that could be tailored specifically for individuals with SCI, and points to the need for general education and awareness for what mindfulness is and is not.
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 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".