Designing the Whole Day Matters Toolkit for Physiotherapists to Enhance Movement Behaviour Discussions: Findings from a Multi-Study Usability and Consensus-Building Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Purpose: The Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Adults (24HMG) provide evidence-based recommendations for optimal levels of movement behaviours. Physiotherapists are well positioned to promote health through 24HMG discussions but are not the intended users of the existing Whole Day Matters Toolkit created to facilitate these discussions. This study aimed to understand the specific needs and preferences of physiotherapists for a toolkit that facilitates 24HMG discussions with their patients and to design and develop an effective, user-friendly one. Method: We undertook a two-phase research process. We collected perceptions from eight physiotherapists about the existing toolkit using think-aloud, near-live, and interview methods. Using the findings, we revised the existing toolkit to create a draft Physiotherapy Toolkit. Twenty-one physiotherapists then completed a modified Delphi study to reach consensus on the draft toolkit. Results: Physiotherapists felt positively toward having a toolkit and thought it facilitated a client-centred approach; however, barriers included 24HMG knowledge and discussion initiation. Consensus was reached on the draft toolkit in three rounds of the modified Delphi. Conclusions: The Whole Day Matters Toolkit for Physiotherapists addresses barriers to 24HMG discussions by providing 24HMG knowledge, a questionnaire, and a handout. The toolkit supports physiotherapists’ roles in health promotion through movement behaviour counselling.
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 | 0.179 | 0.231 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".