“A little bit of a guidance and a little bit of group support”: a qualitative study of preferences, barriers, and facilitators to participating in community-based exercise opportunities among adults living with chronic pain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand preferences, barriers, and facilitators to participating in community-based exercise opportunities among adults living with chronic pain. An interpretive description methodology based on semi-structured interviews was conducted. Adults (age>18 years) living with chronic pain (pain >3 months in duration) were recruited from a multidisciplinary chronic pain clinic in Toronto, Canada. Thematic analysis was used to conceptualize interview data. Fifteen adults living with chronic pain (11/15 women) were interviewed. Four themes regarding preferences, barriers, and facilitators to participation in community-based exercise are described: (1) accessibility (e.g., cost, location, scheduling, and access to program information from healthcare providers); (2) intrinsic factors (e.g., pain, mental health, and motivation); (3) social factors (e.g., isolation, participation with people with similar capabilities, and safe environment); and (4) program factors (e.g., tailored to adults living with chronic pain, gentle exercise, group-based, and delivered by an instructor knowledgeable about chronic pain). Participation in community-based exercise opportunities among adults living with chronic pain may be influenced by accessibility, intrinsic factors, social factors, and program factors. Results provide a foundation of understanding to develop person-centered community-based exercise opportunities that are tailored to meet the preferences of this population.Implications for RehabilitationAlthough community-based exercise is commonly recommended as part of ongoing self-management of chronic pain, there is limited research exploring perspectives towards community-based exercise opportunities from the perspective of adults living with chronic pain.Adults living with chronic pain reported specific preferences, barriers, and facilitators to participating in community-based exercise opportunities, including accessibility, instrinsic factors, social factors, and program factors.Most adults living with chronic pain reported a preference for community-based exercise opportunities that: (1) are delivered by an instructor who is knowledgeable about chronic pain; (2) involve gentle exercise; (3) are group-based; and (4) include other individuals with similar physical capabilities.Healthcare providers, community-based organizations, and researchers should develop, implement, and evaluate person-centered community-based exercise opportunities for adults living with chronic pain that consider their unique preferences, barriers, and facilitators to participation. Although community-based exercise is commonly recommended as part of ongoing self-management of chronic pain, there is limited research exploring perspectives towards community-based exercise opportunities from the perspective of adults living with chronic pain. Adults living with chronic pain reported specific preferences, barriers, and facilitators to participating in community-based exercise opportunities, including accessibility, instrinsic factors, social factors, and program factors. Most adults living with chronic pain reported a preference for community-based exercise opportunities that: (1) are delivered by an instructor who is knowledgeable about chronic pain; (2) involve gentle exercise; (3) are group-based; and (4) include other individuals with similar physical capabilities. Healthcare providers, community-based organizations, and researchers should develop, implement, and evaluate person-centered community-based exercise opportunities for adults living with chronic pain that consider their unique preferences, barriers, and facilitators to participation.
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".