MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Perceived Benefits and Barriers to Exercise in Older Adults Following a Community-based ExerciseTraining Program

2004· article· en· W2046221563 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tom J. Overend, Chastity N. Lattanzio, Robert J. Petrella

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsPetrel Robertson Consulting (Canada)Western University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePhysical therapyLikert scaleRandomized controlled trialGerontologyIntervention (counseling)PsychologyInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2068 Healthy physical and psychological aging is associated with regular participation in exercise. PURPOSE: To examine the change in perceived benefits and barriers to exercise over 12 months in patients enrolled in a community-based exercise intervention delivered by family physicians. METHODS: The Step Test Exercise Prescription (STEP) is a 24-month, stratified, clustered randomized clinical trial, with 360 older adults aged 50 to 86 years from 40 family practices in four provinces of Canada (British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, and Nova Scotia). Secondary outcomes included perceived benefits and barriers to exercise measured by the Exercise Benefits/Barriers Scale, a 43-item questionnaire utilizing a 4-point Likert scale with anchors of “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” (possible range of scores 43 to 172). The higher the score, the more positively exercise is perceived. The possible ranges of scores on the Benefits (29-item) and Barriers (14-item) subscales are between 29 and 116, and 14 and 56, respectively; the higher the score, the greater the perception of benefits and barriers to exercise. RESULTS: Subjects were healthy, community dwelling older men (42.8%) and women (57.2%) with a mean age of 64.9 ± 7.1 years. Overall, the mean score for all 43 items did not significantly change from baseline to follow-up (118.5 ± 10.2 and 118.4 ± 9.6, respectively). However, the mean score for the Benefits scale increased significantly (p<.001) from baseline (91.1 ± 11.8) to follow-up (92.9 ± 12.1) The greatest benefits of exercise reported by older adults were 1) increasing level of physical fitness and muscle strength, 2) improving functioning of cardiovascular system, and 3) a sense of personal accomplishment. Barrier scores decreased significantly (p<.001) from baseline (27.3 ± 5.4) to 12 months (25.5 ± 6.1). The top three barriers to exercise were 1) lack of stamina, 2) fatigued by exercise, and 3) exercise is hard work. CONCLUSION: The major benefit of exercise for older adults was to improve physical functioning, while the major barrier to exercise was lack of stamina/strength. Overall, the exercise intervention improved both perceived benefits and barriers to exercise among older adults. Supported by CIHR.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.223
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.365 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & ExerciseSame topicHealth and Wellbeing ResearchFrench-language works237,207