Group-based physical activity for older adults (GOAL) randomized controlled trial: Exercise adherence outcomes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the health benefits of regular physical activity, across the globe older adults represent the least active section of society. PURPOSE: The GrOup-based physical Activity for oLder adults (GOAL) trial was a three-arm parallel randomized controlled trial (RCT) that was designed to test the efficacy of two group-based exercise programs for older adults, informed by self-categorization theory (SCT), in comparison to a standard group-based exercise program. METHODS: RCT conducted in Greater Vancouver, Canada, enrolled 627 older adults (Mage = 71.57 years, SD = 5.41; 71.0% female). Participants were randomized to similar age same gender (SASG), similar age mixed gender (SAMG), or 'standard' mixed age mixed gender (MAMG) exercise group conditions. In addition to group composition, the intervention programs operationalized principles from SCT designed to foster a sense of social connectedness among participants. The primary outcome of the trial was exercise adherence behavior over 12 and 24 weeks. RESULTS: Analyses of variance revealed that older adults randomized to the SAMG (12-weeks d = .51, p < .001; 24-weeks d = .47, p < .001) and SASG (12-weeks d = .28, p = .012; 24-weeks d = .29, p = .016) conditions adhered to a greater extent than those in the MAMG comparison condition. There were no significant differences between the SAMG and SASG conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide support for the efficacy of group-based physical activity programs informed by SCT. Furthermore, the results suggest that community group-based exercise programs should attempt to engage in age-targeting but not necessarily gender-targeting among older adults. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".