首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>BMC Public Health >Requirements for (web-based) physical activity interventions targeting adults above the age of 65 years – qualitative results regarding acceptance and needs of participants and non-participants
【2h】

Requirements for (web-based) physical activity interventions targeting adults above the age of 65 years – qualitative results regarding acceptance and needs of participants and non-participants

机译:针对65岁以上成年人的(基于网络的)体育锻炼干预措施的要求–有关参与者和非参与者的接受和需求的定性结果

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

This paper is based on the results of the questionnaire-based survey assessing acceptance of the intervention among the two intervention group participants of PROMOTE, that was conducted at the 12-weeks follow-up, as well as the qualitative semi-structured interviews which were conducted as part of RTC (see Table  for further details regarding the content of the survey questionnaire and the interview guide). Due to the heterogeneity of the data material, qualitative content analysis was chosen to analyse the data [ ]. Following a deductive-inductive approach, a theoretical frame containing key topics and subtopics was developed. The classification of the relevant text and coding units to the overarching categories as well as the subcategories was performed by two independent researchers. The developed framework was systematically applied to the entire dataset and finalized following an iterative process (discussion  modification). In order to reduce the risk of bias, peer debriefing strategies were implemented. The results of individual analysis steps were elaborated and further developed by two scientists at regular intervals (four eyes principle). Important milestones of data analysis (overarching categories and socio-ecological model) were validated in two workshops attended by three qualitatively researching scientists. For instance, selected codes reflected upon and discussed together. All deviations in interpretation were discussed until a consensus was reached. Illustrative quotes were selected from the existing material as anchor examples. In addition, differences in statements between younger (40], level of education was categorized as low (ISCED score 1–2), medium (ISCED score 3–4), or high (ISCED score 5–8). Excerpts of the interviews and questionnaires relevant for this manuscript were translated from German into English (see Tables  and ). To minimize the risk of possible blurring and translation errors, all English quotes were checked against original transcripts by a team consisting of the interviewer and a native speaker.
机译:本文基于基于问卷的调查结果,评估了PROMOTE的两个干预小组参与者对干预的接受程度(在12周的随访期间进行)以及定性的半结构化访谈,作为RTC的一部分进行(有关调查问卷和访谈指南内容的更多详细信息,请参见表)。由于数据材料的异质性,选择了定性内容分析法来分析数据[]。遵循演绎-归纳方法,开发了包含关键主题和子主题的理论框架。有关文本和编码单位对总体类别以及子类别的分类是由两名独立的研究人员进行的。所开发的框架被系统地应用于整个数据集,并在迭代过程(讨论修改)之后最终确定。为了减少偏见的风险,实施了同行汇报策略。两名科学家定期(四眼原理)详细阐述并进一步开发了各个分析步骤的结果。数据分析的重要里程碑(总体类别和社会生态模型)在两个由三名定性研究科学家参加的研讨会上得到了验证。例如,选择的代码可以共同反映和讨论。讨论所有解释上的偏差,直到达成共识。从现有资料中选择说明性引语作为锚示例。此外,年轻人(40岁),受教育程度之间的陈述差异分为低(ISCED 1-2分),中(ISCED 3-4分)或高(ISCED 5-8分)。并将与该手稿有关的问卷从德语翻译成英语(请参见表和)。为了最大程度地减少可能出现的模糊和翻译错误的风险,由访调员和以英语为母语的团队对所有英语语录进行了对照原始笔录的检查。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号