Who Will Stay and Who Will Go? A Review of Older Adults’ Adherence to Randomized Controlled Trials of Exercise
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined exercise-adherence rates and their predictors across 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving older adults (age ≥ 55 years). On average, participants completed 78% of their prescribed exercise bouts. Adherence tended to be greater in strength- and flexibility-exercise training programs ( M = 87%) than in aerobic-exercise training programs ( M = 75%). The best adherers were individuals who were fitter at baseline, had a history of a physically active lifestyle, were nonsmokers, and had higher exercise self-efficacy. Different variables predicted adherence (a) at different time points in a RCT. (b) to different types of exercise, and (c) to different aspects of the exercise prescription (i.e., frequency, intensity, and duration). The findings suggest that older adults might be more adherent to exercise prescriptions than younger adults are. There is also a need for more theory-based research to examine predictors of adherence to various aspects of the exercise prescription.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it