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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
Trinidad Valenzuela, Husna Razee, Daniel Schoene, Stephen R. Lord, Kim Delbaere

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations38
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR AgingSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207