Design and Implementation of a Community Program to Promote Cognitive Vitality Among Seniors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Jog Your Mind is a community-based program aiming to enable seniors to maintain their cognitive abilities. It includes stimulating activities, information on aging, mnemonic strategies, and promotion of a healthy lifestyle and is offered over 10 weekly sessions to seniors with no known cognitive impairment. Purpose: This article describes the development and content of the program, as well as the results of the process evaluation. Methods: A coconstruction framework guided the development and evaluation of the program. The development involved experts, practitioners, and partners. The program was implemented by 13 community organizations (n = 143 seniors). Program implementation, response of the participants, and group leaders' and managers' opinions of the program were documented. Results: The program was implemented in variable contexts, socioeconomic levels, type and size of settings, group leaders' background, and participants' profiles. Seniors' satisfaction and participation rates were high. Opinions from group leaders and managers were positive and suggestions for improvement were minor. Discussion: Jog Your Mind was considered as satisfactory and beneficial by participants and feasible by community organization practitioners. Translation to Health Education Practice: Using a systematic, coconstruction framework involving stakeholders can lead to relevant and practical interventions that are well received by practitioners and the target population.
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 | 0.002 | 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".