ArticleBMJ public health2026
Physical activity promotion among HIV providers in Colorado: an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study.
Article in BMJ public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of this study was to characterise physical activity promotion and explore strategies to increase physical activity promotion among HIV providers at an outpatient infectious disease clinic. Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study with an explanatory sequential design using a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. We recruited providers with an independent caseload of people living with HIV (PLHIV) in an outpatient HIV clinic. We administered a questionnaire asking about physical activity promotion with patients, followed by a semi-structured interview with a subsample of participants. We analysed questionnaire responses descriptively and interview transcripts were analysed using a conventional content analysis. Results: Seventeen providers participated in the study. Questionnaire responses (n=17) indicated that 88% of providers felt that physical activity promotion was a worthwhile intervention, but 65% did not feel that there was sufficient compensation from insurance companies or clinic resources to promote physical activity. In interviews (n=8), providers reported they felt that more structured physical activity advice for patients would be most beneficial. Conclusions: Understanding the extent of physical activity promotion among providers, as well as barriers and facilitators of this behaviour, may inform implementation of strategies to maximise health promotion. Providers generally promoted physical activity but discussed the need for structured physical activity interventions and described the current systems-level barriers for activity promotion. The incorporation of an in-clinic specialist was proposed as a potential strategy to better facilitate initiation and sustained adherence to physical activity with PLHIV but should be explored in future studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.