Jog Your Mind: methodology and challenges of conducting evaluative research in partnership with community organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Jog Your Mind is a community-based program aiming at empowering elderly people to maintain their cognitive abilities using a multi-strategic approach including cognitively stimulating activities, mnemonic strategies, and strategies to promote healthy behaviors. It is offered to elderly individuals without known or diagnosed cognitive impairment by volunteers or community practitioners over ten weekly sessions. This paper describes the protocol of a quasi-experimental study designed to evaluate Jog Your Mind. METHODS: Community responsible to recruit participants were either assigned to the experimental group (participating in the Jog Your Mind program) or to the control group (one-year waiting list). All participants were interviewed at baseline (T1), after the program (T2), and 12 months after the baseline (T3). Primary outcomes were the use of everyday memory strategies and aids and subjective memory functioning in daily life. Secondary outcomes included attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors related to cognitive vitality and cognitive abilities (memory and executive functions). Program delivery, organizational and environmental variables were recorded to document the implementation process. RESULTS: Twenty-three community organizations recruited 294 community-dwelling elderly individuals in total at T1. Between T1 and T3, an attrition rate of 15.2% was obtained. CONCLUSIONS: Jog Your Mind is one of the only programs targeting cognition among older adults being offered in community settings by community practitioners. The protocol described was designed with a focus on maximizing broad generalizations of the results while achieving scientific rigor. It can serve as an example to guide future research aiming to evaluate health interventions under natural conditions.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | high |
| grok | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | high |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | medium |
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 | 0.794 | 0.748 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
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".