Determinants of Sedentary Behaviour in Individuals with COPD: A Qualitative Exploration Guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), there is increasing recognition that the prolonged accumulation of sedentary time (ST) is associated with adverse cardio-metabolic health outcomes. Nevertheless, changing this lifestyle, which has evolved over several decades, is likely to be challenging. This study reports the determinants, perceived by individuals with COPD, as being important for reducing ST. An in-depth understanding of this information is essential when planning an intervention to reduce ST. Fourteen individuals with COPD completed semi-structured one-on-one interviews, which were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Both the interview schedule and mapping of data items extracted from the interview transcripts were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). A total of 867 quotes were mapped to the 14 TDF domains. Seven of the fourteen domains were identified as being important determinants for reducing ST: knowledge, beliefs about consequences, beliefs about capabilities, environmental context and resources, social influences, social/professional role and identity, and behavioural regulation. There was a lack of knowledge regarding the meaning of sedentary behaviour. Participants’ desire to be educated by knowledgeable health professionals in a formal programme was a dominant theme across multiple domains. The most frequently reported barriers to reducing ST related to the domains of social/professional role and identity and environmental context and resources, while the most frequently reported enablers were related to the domains pertaining to beliefs about consequences and social influences. Potential strategies to reduce ST among people with COPD include education and other determinants identified in this research.
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 | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".