MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984942778 · doi:10.1123/japa.2019-0217

The Exploration of Occupational Therapy Interventions to Address Sedentary Behavior and Pain Among Older Adults

2019· article· en· W2984942778 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Allison Naber, Whitney Lucas Molitor, Andy Farriell, Kara Honius, Brooke Poppe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Physical Activity · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysical therapyActigraphyOccupational therapyPsychological interventionIntervention (counseling)MedicineSedentary behaviorCaloriePhysical activityGerontologyMcGill Pain QuestionnaireAssisted Living FacilityActivities of daily livingPsychologyAssisted livingNursingVisual analogue scalePsychiatryInsomnia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to determine the feasibility of an occupational therapy intervention to address sedentary behavior and pain among older adults residing in assisted living facilities. A single group pretest and posttest design was implemented using the Sedentary Behavior Questionnaire, actigraphy technology, and daily activity logs to measure sedentary behavior. The Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire was used to assess pain. Occupational therapy intervention focused on individualized goals related to participation in meaningful physical activities, which were established in collaboration with the participant and were tracked for 3 weeks. A total of 12 participants were recruited for this study. The mean number of steps and daily calories burned over the course of a week increased by 3,058.3 steps (30.82%) and 57.64 calories (19.96%), respectively. Individualized goal setting may have a positive impact on the reduction of pain and increasing activity levels among older adults residing in assisted living facilities.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.174

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging and Physical ActivitySame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207