Participatory Action Research With individuals Who Have a Moderate To Severe Traumatic Brain injury : The Process of Co-Creating a Peer-Run Physical Activity Program in The Community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Physical activity (PA) and sport are suggested as a non-stigmatizing approaches to address long-term problems following moderate and severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and can positively influence community integration, mood, and quality of life. However, promoting PA and sport participation for people with TBI is challenging due to long-term sequelae associated with their injuries. Consequently, PA and sport programs must be appropriately designed. This project aims to pursue the co-creation of a community-based PA and sport program for persons with TBI and stems from a pilot program that began in January 2017 in collaboration with multiple organizational partners. The program consists of three phases (i.e., learning how to train safely, independently and for a triathlon event). Four individuals with TBI from the pilot program are currently peer mentors and share their perspectives, motivate new members and assist with the development of the project as key stakeholders. To facilitate the implementation, evaluation and sustainability of the program, formal procedures and toolkits must be co-created with researchers and stakeholders to ensure the content is tailored to the program usersu2019 needs.Objectives: 1) explore the impact of the current program on mentors, participants, and administration to inform the creation process of the new program; 2) co-construct the programu2019s logic model while identifying strategies to ensure program sustainability with the community fitness center; 3) co-create a set of clearly-defined protocols for the new peer mentor program.Design: An embedded mixed-method design will be used in which supplemental qualitative data will be collected to enhance the development of the program protocol. This design incorporates participant perceptions and experiences of the program before, during and after primary measures are administered to support aspects of the overall application and evaluation of the program.Participants: A heterogeneous convenience sample of 20 community-dwelling, adult participants (4 peer mentors, 16 active participants) with severe TBI in Eastern Canada have been purposely recruited based on their suitability for the program.Methods: In line with the participatory action research approach, there will be equitable collaboration among organizational representatives (n=3), a team of multidisciplinary researchers (n=5) and community members (mentors, n=4) in every aspect of the research process. Through an iterative process, regular scheduled sessions will take place with working group teams to clearly inform a logic model describing the necessary inputs, key components, and expected outputs of the program to facilitate the development of the programu2019s protocols.Significance: This presentation will share the process of co-creating a study protocol for this innovative community based research program with multiple stakeholders. The results will further our understanding about the factors that promote PA and sport participation for adults with moderate to severe TBI and make recommendations about working with this community.
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 | 0.086 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".