Exploring Impact of Independent Living Programme on Activity Participation Of Elderly People with Chronic Conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Independent Living Programme (ILP) is an eight-week community-based rehabilitation programme, consisting of group and individual interventions for older adults with chronic conditions. This research is an exploratory study to examine the potential impact of the programme on attendees' participation in daily activities and self-perceptions of performance and satisfaction with their performance of activities of daily living. Methods: Study participants were over 70 years of age, with physician-confirmed diagnoss of chronic conditions. 4 single-group, pre-test, post-test design ( Shadish et al, 2002 ) was used with a qualitative component. Evaluation measures included the Model of Human Occupation Screening Tool (MOHOST), the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) and qualitative interviews. Ethical approval was obtained from Trinity College Dublin and Health Service Executive ethics committees. Findings: Ten people participated in the study. There was significant improvement in participants' overall activity participation (P<0.011), self-perceptions of performance (P<0.001) and satisfaction (P<0.001). Motor skills and motivation to engage in activity also improved significantly (P<0.001 and P<0.035). Interviewees reported increased self-efficacy and reflection on how they performed their daily activities. There was no significant difference in scores on process skills, communication/ interactions skills, and environmental influences on performance pre and post participation in the programme. Conclusion: This 8-week ILP significantly increased participants' overall activity participation, their self-perceptions of their activity performance and satisfaction with same. Due to the non-experimental nature of the study however, the results must be interpreted with caution. On the other hand, this study has clinical significance as it appears that the combination of group-education sessions, and individual tailored interventions, improves people's confidence, their motivation and motor skills to participate in activities. Further experimental research is required to confirm these findings.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".