MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900118086 · doi:10.2196/11975

An Interactive Home-Based Cognitive-Motor Step Training Program to Reduce Fall Risk in Older Adults: Qualitative Descriptive Study of Older Adults’ Experiences and Requirements

2018· article· en· W2900118086 on OpenAlex
Trinidad Valenzuela, Husna Razee, Daniel Schoene, Stephen R. Lord, Kim Delbaere

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Aging · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFall preventionPsychological interventionGerontologyMedicineFalls in older adultsPhysical therapyLimitingHuman factors and ergonomicsCognitionPoison controlPhysical medicine and rehabilitationNursingMedical emergencyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Falls are a major contributor to the burden of disease in older adults. Home-based exercise programs are effective in reducing the rate and risk of falls in older adults. However, adherence to home-based exercise programs is low, limiting the efficacy of interventions. The implementation of technology-based exercise programs for older adults to use at home may increase exercise adherence and, thus, the effectiveness of fall prevention interventions. More information about older adults' experiences when using technologies at home is needed to enable the design of programs that are tailored to older adults' needs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) explore older adults' experiences using SureStep, an interactive cognitive-motor step training program to reduce fall risk unsupervised at home; (2) explore program features that older adults found encouraged program uptake and adherence; (3) identify usability issues encountered by older adults when using the program; and (4) provide guidance for the design of a future technology-based exercise program tailored to older adults to use at home as a fall prevention strategy. METHODS: This study was part of a larger randomized controlled trial. The qualitative portion of the study and the focus of this paper used a qualitative descriptive design. Data collectors conducted structured, open-ended in-person interviews with study participants who were randomly allocated to use SureStep at home for 4 months. All interviews were audiotaped and ranged from 45 to 60 min. Thematic analysis was used to analyze collected data. This study was guided by Pender's Health Promotion Model. RESULTS: Overall, 24 older adults aged 70 to 97 years were interviewed. Findings suggest older adults are open to use technology-based exercise programs at home, and in the context of optimizing adherence to home-based exercise programs for the prevention of falls, findings suggest that program developers should develop exercise programs in ways that provide older adults with a fun and enjoyable experience (thus increasing intrinsic motivation to exercise), focus on improving outcomes that are significant to older adults (thus increasing self-determined extrinsic motivation), offer challenging yet attainable exercises (thus increasing perceived self-competence), provide positive feedback on performance (thus increasing self-efficacy), and are easy to use (thus reducing perceived barriers to technology use). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides important considerations when designing technology-based programs so they are tailored to the needs of older adults, increasing both usability and acceptability of programs and potentially enhancing exercise participation and long-term adherence to fall prevention interventions. Program uptake and adherence seem to be influenced by (1) older adults' perceived benefits of undertaking the program, (2) whether the program is stimulating, and (3) the perceived barriers to exercise and technology use. Older adults shared important recommendations for future development of technologies for older adults to use at home.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.397 · 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