Older adults at risk of a cardiovascular event: a preliminary investigation of their experiences of an active lifestyle scheme in England
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Reducing risk of a cardiovascular event involves adopting healthier lifestyles. Community-based active lifestyle schemes offer support, but problems with uptake, completion and evaluation are common. We report the engagement and experiences of older adults referred to a scheme in England. Data transcribed from a focus group or individual interviews were analysed using thematic framework analysis. Participants reported an increased awareness of health difficulties with age, and described attendance-related psychological benefits, including an increased sense of responsibility for change and having had negative beliefs about age, health and change challenged. Some physical benefits (including reduced weight and blood pressure) were also reported. Those who attended most consistently were more likely to report caring responsibilities and describe positive social and relational outcomes, but were not more likely to report marked physical benefits. We recommend several changes to ensure that schemes meet their objectives and the needs of those referred. Age-related, health and lifestyle beliefs do not prohibit change but influence attendance and so should be addressed. Outcomes should be publicised, and structured, fixed-term programmes, incorporating relapse-prevention strategies, should be delivered to a closed group at flexible times. Active follow-up of non-attenders and improved data collection are also recommended. These should reduce the risk of schemes providing social support at the expense of intended health benefits.
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 | 0.001 | 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".