Changes in Intensity and Duration of Walking among Older Adults from In-Patient Geriatric Rehabilitation to Home
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: We compared walking in hospital and on discharge from in-patient geriatric rehabilitation. Method: Participants included 28 adults (22 women) with a mean age of 85.4 (SD 6.8) years, ambulating independently with planned discharge to the community. Steps per day, short and long walking bouts, and cadence (steps per minute) were measured using an ActiGraph GT3X+ activity monitor (5 d in hospital, 5 d at home). Results: Steps per day did not differ between hospital and home (median difference=401; 95% CI: −364, 1,215; p=0.10). Long walking bouts (≥5 min) were infrequent in both locations (1/d) but lasted longer in hospital. Short walking bouts (≥15 s) were more frequent and shorter at home. Daily peak 1-minute cadence and peak 30-minute cadence were greater in hospital. Conclusions: Older adults in geriatric rehabilitation take longer walks and walk at faster paces in hospital, and they engage in more frequent, shorter walks at home. Although further research is needed, older adults would benefit from the opportunity to walk at different paces and different distances on discharge. Outpatient rehabilitation or other community-based programmes and initiatives may provide these experiences and appropriate environments to enable individuals to maintain mobility and independent functioning in the long term.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".