Per-protocol Analysis Of BAILAMOS™ Dance Program On Self-reported And Device-assessed Physical Activity In Older Latinos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Test the impact of the BAILAMOSTM dance program on PA levels in older Latinos. METHODS: Older Latino adults (n= 333; Mage = 64.89±7.08) were randomized into a dance (n=167) or health education (HE) (n=166) group. For purposes of per-protocol analysis, participants with attendance ≥75% in dance and HE classes, respectively, were included. The final analytic sample was 145 participants (dance = 63, HE = 82). The dance group participated in four months of Latin dancing, two times per week for one hour per session. The HE group participated in classes once per week for two hours per session for four months. Participants completed the CHAMPS PA Questionnaire and wore an ActiGraph™ GT3X+ accelerometer for seven consecutive days on their non-dominant wrist. Data was used if the participant wore for it at least 10 hours/day over three days. Wrist cut-points utilized were proposed by Kamada (2016) (moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) ≥7500 counts per minute). We performed a fixed-intercept mixed model (p < .05), adjusting for baseline covariates of age, sex, education, income, and health status. Cohen’s d effect sizes were computed. RESULTS: Self-reported MVPA (minutes) increased significantly (t(1, 120)=3.2, p=0.002) from baseline (Dance: M=140.81±211.35; HE: M=115.48±182.65) to month-4 (Dance: M=29.11±20.45; HE: M=23.21±18.27), but no group*time interaction was demonstrated t(1, 121)=1.33, p=0.19, d=0.22. Total leisure-time PA (LTPA) (minutes) increased significantly from baseline (Dance: M=280.50±285.35; HE: M=360.71±361.05) to month-4 (Dance: M=579.72±346.10; HE: M=500.34±483.04), with significant group*time interaction t(1, 121)=2.16, p=0.03, d=0.33. Accelerometer-assessed MVPA did not increase significantly from baseline (Dance: M=24.43±22.67; HE: M=22.51±17.91) to month-4 (Dance: M=29.11±20.45; HE: M=23.21±18.27) and there was no group*time interaction t(1, 112)=1.53, p=0.13, d=0.43. CONCLUSIONS: The BAILAMOS© dance program showed a positive impact on self-reported LTPA. This impact was not observed in device-assessed PA, however, there was a moderate effect. Supported by NIH Grant 1R01NR013151-01.
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 | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".