Were adults with intellectual disability (ID) meeting the 2020 Canadian 24-hour movement guidelines during COVID-19? A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Maintaining a healthy lifestyle is crucial to reducing the risk of chronic disease and improving overall health and well-being. However, individuals with intellectual disability (ID) experience high levels of physical inactivity, sedentary behaviour, and poor sleep, leading to detrimental health outcomes. This pilot study investigated the extent to which adults with ID met the 2020 Canadian 24-hour Movement Guidelines during COVID-19. This pilot study followed a 9-day observational cross-sectional design and included 15 adults (6F, 9M) between the ages of 20-64 years. Using commercially available wearable technology, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) and sedentary time were extrapolated using heart rate, and total sleep time was measured to compare to guidelines. A novel diary subjectively tracked the number of bouts and types of physical activity performed. Of the 15 participants, 11 met the MVPA guideline (73%), 4 met the sedentary behaviour guideline (27%), 7 met the sleep guideline (47%), and only 1 participant met all 3 of the guidelines (7%). There were no significant differences for MVPA, light-physical activity (LPA), and sleep between weekdays and weekend days, or between females and males. Walking, cleaning dishes, and swimming were the most common types of physical activity performed by participants. Spearman’s rank-order correlations showed very low positive correlations between the number of physical activity bouts reported and the number of movement guidelines met, weekly MVPA, weekly sedentary time, sleep, and body mass index. Findings from this pilot study indicate a real need to improve sleep and reduce sedentary time by adults with ID. This pilot study recommends building on the objective and subjective measures used in this study in further research on physical activity and sleep in adults with ID.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".