A park-based group mobility program for older adults with difficulty walking outdoors: a quantitative process evaluation of the Getting Older Adults Outdoors (GO-OUT) randomized controlled trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background Process evaluations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of community exercise programs are important to help explain the results of a trial and provide evidence of the feasibility for community implementation. The objectives of this process evaluation for a multi-centre RCT of outdoor walking interventions for older adults with difficulty walking outdoors, were to determine: 1) implementation fidelity (the extent to which elements of the intervention were delivered as specified in the original protocol) and 2) participant engagement (the receipt of intervention components by the participants) in the Getting Older Adults Outdoors (GO-OUT) trial. Methods GO-OUT participants attended an active 1-day workshop designed to foster safe, outdoor walking skills. After the workshop, 190 people at 4 sites were randomized to an outdoor walk group (OWG) ( n = 98) which met 2x/week for 10 weeks, or the weekly reminders (WR) group ( n = 92) which received a phone reminder 1x/week for 10 weeks. The OWG had 5 components – warm-up, continuous distance walk, task-oriented walking activities, 2 nd continuous distance walk, and cool-down. Data on implementation fidelity and participant engagement were gathered during the study through site communications, use of standardized forms, reflective notes of the OWG leaders, and accelerometry and GPS assessment of participants during 2 weeks of the OWG. Results All sites implemented the workshop according to the protocol. Participants were engaged in all 8 activity stations of the workshop. WR were provided to 96% of the participants in the WR intervention group. The 5 components of the OWG sessions were implemented in over 95% of the sessions, as outlined in the protocol. Average attendance in the OWG was not high – 15% of participants did not attend any sessions and 64% of participants in the OWG attended > 50% of the sessions. Evaluations with accelerometry and GPS during week 3 and 9 OWG sessions suggest that participants who attended were engaged and active during the OWG. Conclusions This process evaluation helps explain the main study findings and demonstrates the flexibility required in the protocol for safe and feasible community implementation. Future research could explore the use of additional behaviour change strategies to optimize attendance for community implementation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03292510 Date of registration: September 25, 2017.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».