Exploring Physical Activity Maintenance Among Adults With Spinal Cord Injury: A Multiple Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to qualitatively explore how and in what ways adults with spinal cord injury (SCI) maintain physical activity participation. A multiple case study design of four cases was conducted. Each case was an adult (20-44 years) with SCI who maintained physical activity for one or more years post rehabilitation. For each case, three one-on-one semistructured interviews were conducted. Two interviews were with the adult with SCI, and one interview was an individual that they identified as their physical activity facilitator. In addition, the adults with SCI provided photographs and activity diaries to visually contextualize the physical activity environments and expand the researcher's interpretation of participants' physical activity maintenance. An individual case analysis, following an inductive thematic analysis, was used to analyze each case. Then, a cross-case analysis was conducted to identify how and in what ways the participants maintained physical activity. Individual case results provided specific reasons as to how and why adults with SCI maintained physical activity participation. Four themes were identified from the cross-case results: (1) ease of engagement, (2) gratification from participation, (3) consistency in the behavior, and (4) self-awareness of the health benefits gained from physical activity. These findings were identified as main themes supporting physical activity maintenance across adults with SCI and could be most relevant for supporting and understanding physical activity maintenance among adults with SCI. This multiple case study provides novel insights into what facilitates maintenance and underscores the importance of continued exploration of physical activity maintenance among adults with SCI.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".