MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2727105257 · doi:10.1093/geroni/igx004.834

PERSON-CENTERED WALKING TO MAINTAIN THE MOBILITY, ADL FUNCTION, AND QUALITY OF LIFE OF LTC RESIDENTS

2017· article· en· W2727105257 on OpenAlexaff
Charlene H. Chu, Martine Puts, Monica Parry, Dina Brooks, Katherine S. McGilton

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovation in Aging · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGaitQuality of life (healthcare)Activities of daily livingMean differenceSignificant differenceTimed Up and Go testPreferred walking speedPhysical therapyFunctional Independence MeasureAnalysis of variancePhysical medicine and rehabilitationBalance (ability)Internal medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aim: To determine the efficacy of a person-centered multifaceted walking intervention (MWI) to maintain the mobility, ADL function, and QOL of LTC residents with dementia. Method: An interrupted time-series design was used. Measures of mobility (2-minute walk test[2MWT], Timed-Up-and-Go[TUG], gait speed), ADL function (Functional Independence Measure[FIM]), and QOL (Alzheimer’s Related Quality of Life Scale[ARQOL]) were collected before and after the 2-month pre-MWI phase, and at the middle and end of the 4-month MWI phase. The MWI consisted of a one-to-one walking regime and an individualized communication care plan tailored to the resident provided up to 4x/week for 4 months. RM-ANOVA was used to evaluate MWI efficacy. Results: All eligible residents (n=26), PSW staff (n=21) and power of attorneys (n=25) enrolled in the study. During the pre-MWI phase, residents experienced a significant decline in mobility: TUG increased by 4.4% (mean difference= 4.15 sec., P=0.01), 2MWT decreased by 9.7% (mean difference= -5.78 m., P=0.03), gait speed decreased by 11.3% (mean difference= -0.05 m/sec, P=0.022), decline in ADL function (mean difference= -17.88, P=0.03), and a loss of QOL (mean difference= -1.84, P=0.030). During the MWI phase, the TUG improved by 32.1% (mean difference= -8.58, P=0.000), 2MWT improved by 51.2% (mean difference= 27.47, P= 0.000), gait speed improved by 55.1% (mean difference= 0.23, P=0.000), ADL function increased by 25% (mean difference= 15.60, P=0.000), and QOL increased by 7.8% (mean difference= 2.44, P=0.063). Conclusion: Findings provide preliminary evidence for a future trial, and a greater understanding of the role of person-centered care in delivering PA in LTC.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.268
GPT teacher head0.451
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovation in AgingSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207