Sustained Economic Benefits of Resistance Training in Community‐Dwelling Senior Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: To determine whether the health and cost benefits of resistance training were sustained 12 months after formal cessation of the intervention. DESIGN: Cost-utility analysis conducted alongside a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Community-dwelling women aged 65 to 75 living in Vancouver, British Columbia. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty-three of the 155 community-dwelling women aged 65 to 75 years who originally were randomly allocated to once-weekly resistance training (n=54), twice-weekly resistance training (n=52), or twice-weekly balance and tone exercises (control group; n=49) participated in the 12-month follow-up study. Of these, 98 took part in the economic evaluation (twice-weekly balance and tone exercises, n=28; once-weekly resistance training, n=35; twice-weekly resistance training, n=35). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measure was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained. Healthcare resource utilization was assessed over 21 months (2009 prices); health status was assessed using the EuroQol-5D to calculate QALYs using a 21-month time horizon. RESULTS: Once- and twice-weekly resistance training were less costly than balance and tone classes, with incremental mean healthcare costs of Canadian dollars (CAD$)1,857 and CAD$1,077, respectively. The incremental QALYs for once- and twice-weekly resistance training were -0.051 and -0.081, respectively, compared with balance and tone exercises. CONCLUSION: The cost benefits of participating in a 12-month resistance training intervention were sustained for the once- and twice-weekly resistance training group, whereas the health benefits were not.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".