MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416110859 · doi:10.2196/86785

Experiences with technology among adults aging with HIV engaged in an online community-based exercise intervention study: a longitudinal qualitative descriptive study and secondary data analysis (Preprint)

2025· article· en· W4416110859 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Julia Mucha, R.C. Hamdy, M. Marini, Reda Aasem, Chung Duong, Tai-Te Su, Soo Chan Carusone, Kelly K. O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV-related health complications and treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Descriptive statisticsIntervention (counseling)CoachingQualitative researcheHealthHealth coachingQualitative propertyPsychological interventionFocus group

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background As individuals with HIV live longer, many now face the health consequences of aging and multimorbidity, known as disability. Exercise can mitigate disability; however, engagement in exercise among adults living with HIV varies. Technology-based interventions, such as telerehabilitation, may help mitigate geographical, financial, and time barriers to community-based exercise (CBE). However, little is known about the experiences with technology uptake and usage among adults living with HIV. Understanding these experiences is essential to inform the design of inclusive, accessible, and sustainable online interventions. Objective This study aimed to describe experiences with technology uptake and usage among adults aging with HIV participating in a 6-month online CBE intervention and explore how these experiences changed over time, from baseline to postintervention. Methods We conducted a longitudinal qualitative descriptive study and secondary analysis using interview data from adults living with HIV who were engaged in a CBE intervention study in Toronto, Canada. Participants engaged in a 6-month online CBE intervention consisting of thrice-weekly exercise supervised biweekly through online personal coaching sessions, weekly group exercise classes, and monthly self-management education sessions (via Zoom). The technology used included Zoom software and a webcam, as well as the Sweat for Good YMCA app and the YMCA Virtuagym website; participants wore a wireless physical activity monitor (Fitbit Inspire 2) throughout. Participants completed interviews at baseline and postintervention. We conducted a group-based content analysis of interview transcripts, focusing on digital access, setup, usage, and perceptions of technology. Questionnaire data describing digital literacy and access to technology provided additional context to the interview data. Results Eleven participants completed at least one interview. We analyzed 19 interview transcripts from 11 participants (women: n=6, 55%; men: n=5, 45%; median age 52, IQR 45-60 y). Experiences with technology uptake and usage among adults aging with HIV were characterized by four components: (1) preparations for technology (technology setup), (2) interactions with technology (preferences for different types of technology, preferences for mode of delivery, and ease of usage), (3) facilitators and satisfaction with technology (facilitators to technology uptake and usage and satisfaction with technology), and (4) challenges and frustrations with technology (barriers to technology uptake and usage and frustrations with technology). Experiences with technology across participants were influenced by intrinsic contextual factors (prior exposure to technology) and extrinsic contextual factors (COVID-19 pandemic and technological and social support). Conclusions Experiences with technology among adults aging with HIV engaging in an online CBE intervention varied from increasing ease of use to increasingly burdensome over time. Results highlight the need to incorporate personal preferences and ongoing technological support when implementing online CBE with adults aging with HIV.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive TechnologiesSame topicHIV-related health complications and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207