Predictors of Home Exercise Adherence in Older People with Osteoarthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To identify factors associated with adherence to prescribed exercises in elderly, community-dwelling people with knee and/or hip osteoarthritis. Methods: Logistic regression was used to investigate associations among variables at the beginning of a home exercise program, after 4 weeks of performing exercises (test 2), and at the end of the 8-week program (test 3). Outcome measures were self-reported home exercise adherence at tests 2 and 3, and the predictors were exercise adherence behaviour in the clinic, concurrent physical activity, perception of being physically inactive, and correctness of exercise performance. Results: Home exercise adherence at test 2 was associated with “in-clinic” exercise adherence behaviour at test 2 (odds ratio [OR] = 1.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09–2.01). There were significant associations between home exercise adherence at test 3 and (1) home exercise adherence at test 2 (OR = 19.86; 95% CI = 4.84–81.56); (2) concurrent physical activity at test 3 (OR = 5.58; 95% CI = 1.15–27.05); and (3) the perception of not being physically active at test 1 (OR = 0.07; 95% CI = 0.01–0.52). No associations were found between home exercise adherence and correctness of exercise performance or between home exercise adherence at test 2 and concurrent physical activity at test 2. Conclusions: People who closely adhered to prescribed exercises in the clinic were more likely to adhere at home. Home exercise adherence in weeks 1 to 4 was the strongest predictor of home exercise adherence in weeks 5 to 8. Participants who were physically active at the time of the home program were more likely to perform their home exercises, whereas those who perceived themselves to be inactive at the time of exercise prescription were less likely to maintain exercise at home.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".