Return to Everyday Activity in the Community and Home: a feasibility study for a lifestyle intervention to sit less, move more, and be strong
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many interventions designed to meet physical activity guideline recommendations focus on a single component (e.g., walking), to the detriment of other elements of a healthy lifestyle, such as reducing prolonged sitting and doing balance and strength exercises (i.e., bundled multiple behaviors). Adopting these multiple health behaviors within daily life routines may facilitate uptake and support longer-term behavior change. We tested feasibility for a three-part lifestyle intervention to support older women to sit less, move more, and complete balance and strength exercises. METHODS: We used a convergent parallel mixed-methods, single-arm study design to test feasibility for a 6-week lifestyle intervention: Return to Everyday Activities in the Community and Home (REACH). We collected information at baseline, 3 and 6 weeks (final), and 6 months (follow-up) using questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and performance-based measures. We describe three key elements: (1) implementation factors such as recruitment, retention, program delivery, and adherence; (2) participants' acceptability and experience with the program; and (3) health outcomes, including participants' global mobility, activity, and perceptions of their physical activity identity, and habit strength for (i) physical activity, (ii) breaking up sitting time, and (iii) balance and strength exercises. RESULTS: We were able to recruit enough participants in the allotted time to conduct one cycle of the REACH group-based program. There were 10 community-dwelling women, median (p25, p75) age 61 (57.5, 71) years, who completed the study. The program was feasible to deliver, with high attendance (mean 5/6 sessions) and positive overall ratings (8/10). Participants rated session content and length high, and educational materials as highly acceptable and understandable. Although participants were active walkers at baseline, few were breaking up prolonged sitting or participating in any balance and strength exercises. At final and follow-up assessments, participants reported developing habits for all three health behaviors, without diminishing physical activity. CONCLUSION: These results show acceptability of the program and its materials, and feasibility for bundling multiple health behaviors within the REACH program. It also provides confirmation to advance to testing feasibility of this three-part lifestyle intervention with older, less active, adults. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT02786394; May 18, 2016.
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 | 0.016 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".