Short-term effects of a park-based group mobility program on increasing outdoor walking in older adults with difficulty walking outdoors: the Getting Older Adults Outdoors (GO-OUT) randomized controlled trial
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: We estimated the short-term effects of an educational workshop and 10-week outdoor walk group (OWG) compared to the workshop and 10 weekly reminders (WR) on increasing outdoor walking (primary outcome) and walking capacity, health-promoting behavior, and successful aging defined by engagement in meaningful activities and well-being (secondary outcomes) in older adults with difficulty walking outdoors. METHODS: In a 4-site, parallel-group randomized controlled trial, two cohorts of community-living older adults (≥ 65 years) reporting difficulty walking outdoors participated. Following a 1-day workshop, participants were stratified and randomized to a 10-week OWG in parks or 10 telephone WR reinforcing workshop content. Masked evaluations occurred at 0, 3, and 5.5 months. We modeled minutes walked outdoors (derived from accelerometry and global positioning system data) using zero-inflated negative binomial regression with log link function, imputing for missing observations. We modeled non-imputed composite measures of walking capacity, health-promoting behavior, and successful aging using generalized linear models with general estimating equations based on a normal distribution and an unstructured correlation matrix. Analyses were adjusted for site, participation on own or with a partner, and cohort. RESULTS: We randomized 190 people to the OWG (n = 98) and WR interventions (n = 92). At 0, 3, and 5.5 months, median outdoor walking minutes was 22.56, 13.04, and 0 in the OWG, and 24.00, 26.07, and 0 in the WR group, respectively. There was no difference between groups in change from baseline in minutes walked outdoors based on incidence rate ratio (IRR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) at 3 months (IRR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.47, 1.14) and 5.5 months (IRR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.44, 1.34). Greater 0 to 3-month change in walking capacity was observed in the OWG compared to the WR group (βz-scored difference = 0.14, 95% CI 0.02, 0.26) driven by significant improvement in walking self-efficacy; other comparisons were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: A group, park-based OWG was not superior to WR in increasing outdoor walking activity, health-promoting behavior or successful aging in older adults with difficulty walking outdoors; however, the OWG was superior to telephone WR in improving walking capacity through an increase in walking self-efficacy. Community implementation of the OWG is discussed. 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 | 0,010 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 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 | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| 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 ».