Congregate Meals: Opportunities to Help Vulnerable Older Adults Achieve Diet and Physical Activity Recommendations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Through diet and exercise interventions, community centers offer an opportunity to address health-related issues for some of the oldest, most vulnerable members of our society. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this investigation is to draw upon nationwide data to better characterize the population served by the congregate meals program and to gather more detailed information on a local level to identify opportunities for service enhancement to improve the health and well-being of older adults. DESIGN: We examined community center data from two sources: 2015 National Survey of Older Americans Act and surveys from two New York City community centers. To assess nationwide service delivery, we analyzed participant demographics, functional status defined by activities of daily living, and perceptions of services received. MEASUREMENTS: Participants from the two New York City community centers completed a four-day food record. Functional measures included the short physical performance battery, self-reported physical function, grip strength, and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. RESULTS: Nationwide (n=901), most participants rated the meal quality as good to excellent (91.7%), and would recommend the congregate meals program to a friend (96.0%). Local level data (n=22) were collected for an in-depth understanding of diet, physical activity patterns, body weight, and objective functional status measures. Diets of this small, local convenience sample were higher in fat, cholesterol, and sodium, and lower in calcium, magnesium, and fiber than recommended by current United States Dietary Guidelines. Average time engaged in moderate physical activity was 254 minutes per week (SD=227), exceeding the recommended 150 minutes per week, but just 41% (n=9) and 50% (n=11) of participants engaged in strength or balance exercises, respectively. CONCLUSION: Research is warranted to test whether improvements in the nutritional quality of food served and access/supports for engaging in strength training within community centers could help older adults achieve diet and physical activity recommendations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 0.003 |
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".