MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994733553 · doi:10.1002/hsr2.144

Community health promotion programs for older adults: What helps and hinders implementation

2019· article· en· W2994733553 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Science Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBritish Columbia Centre of Excellence for Women's HealthVancouver Coastal Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsFocus groupHealth promotionMedical educationPsychologyMotivational interviewingNursingGerontologyMedicinePublic healthIntervention (counseling)Business

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Despite the many known health benefits of physical activity (PA), older adults are the least active citizens in many countries. Regular PA significantly decreases the odds of functional limitation and social disengagement. However, there is a dearth of publicly funded support services for older adults. The primary objective of this study is to conduct a formative evaluation to examine the implementation of community-driven health promotion programs for older adults in British Columbia, Canada. METHODS: The Active Aging Grant (AAG) initiative funded 30 community-based organizations in British Columbia to design and deliver community-driven health promotion programs for older adults, with an explicit focus on PA and social connectedness. Guided by the Framework for Successful Implementation, we recruited program coordinators and participants and used semistructured interview guides to focus on design, delivery, and experience within the program. Framework analysis was used with NVivo 11. RESULTS: Thirty-six in-depth, semistructured interviews were conducted in 2017, after program completion. Data saturation was achieved after interviewing 10 coordinators and 26 program participants from seven of the organizations. Eighteen were female; nine were male; 68% fell in the age range of 65-84. We detail the innovation characteristics, provider characteristics, and contextual factors that facilitate and impede program implementation. Aspects that facilitate implementation include that they promote PA, foster social connectedness, and address isolation and loneliness; personal accountability; affordability; program design; providers' appropriate skills; community collaborations; and transportation support. Aspects that hinder implementation include lack of resources for marketing and communications, lack of volunteers and dedicated staff, and access to transportation. We also highlight two themes that emerged outside the theoretical framework, the roles of gender and funding in program implementation. CONCLUSIONS: As part of a formative evaluation, the information will help adapt and enhance implementation of a larger scale-out intervention aimed to increase PA and social connectedness amongst older adults in British Columbia, Canada.

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)0.003
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 score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.591

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.356 · 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