MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116699816 · doi:10.1186/s12875-025-03138-9

Healthcare professionals’ practices and barriers in assessing and promoting physical activity in primary care: a descriptive study

2025· article· en· W7116699816 on OpenAlexaffabout
Geneviève Laflamme, François Trudeau, Marie-Claude Lehoux, Jean Lemoyne, Magali Brousseau-Foley, Julie Houle

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Primary Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Mauricie-et-du-Centre-du-QuébecUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical activityPrimary careDescriptive researchPromotion (chess)Health promotionHealth careHealth professionalsChronic disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals working in primary care are well positioned to provide initial physical activity counseling owing to their frequent patient contact and their role as a trusted source of health information. Unfortunately, despite health benefits and recommendations, physical activity assessment and promotion in primary care settings is not a routine practice. Because there are currently no standardized practices, it is essential to know what practices are currently employed and explore the barriers to their use. The aim of this study is twofold: first, to describe and compare the practices used by primary care healthcare professionals regarding physical activity assessment and promotion among chronic disease patients and second, to explore the barriers to their use. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among primary care healthcare professionals. The questionnaire designed for this project on physical activity assessment and promotion practices was sent electronically to all 619 primary care healthcare professionals in the Mauricie and Centre-du-Quebec regions. Each item was evaluated with a 5-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics were used to describe sociodemographic characteristics as well as physical activity assessment and promotion practices. Group comparisons were performed according to professionals' roles. RESULTS: Sixty-eight (11%) of the healthcare professionals responded to the questionnaire. Both physical activity assessment and promotion practices were reported at similar levels, with mean scores of 3.79 ± 1.05 and 3.69 ± 0.78, respectively, on a 5-point Likert scale. A few specific tools and methods are used by healthcare professionals to assess and promote physical activity. The main barriers to physical activity assessment and promotion during clinical consultation were patients' perceived lack of interest in physical activity and professionals' lack of knowledge regarding PA guidelines, tools and methods, and contraindications. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, primary care healthcare professionals are convinced of the benefits of physical activity in preventing and treating chronic diseases and recognize they have an important role to play. Although committed to promoting physical activity among chronic disease patients, they require continuous training on guidelines, validated tools, and motivational interviews together with clear advice to properly implement physical activity assessment and promotion practices.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.344 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Primary CareSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207