Increasing Physical Activity in Empty Nest and Retired Populations Online: A Randomized Feasibility Trial Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the extensive evidence on the benefits of physical activity (PA) in older adults, including reduced risk of disease, mortality, falls, and cognitive and functional decline, most do not attain sufficient PA levels. Theoretical work suggests that behavioral change interventions are most effective during life transitions, and as such, a theory-based, online intervention tailored for recently retired and empty nest individuals could lend support for increasing levels of PA. The aim of this study is to examine the feasibility of the intervention and study procedures for a future controlled trial. This study has a randomized controlled trial design with an embedded qualitative and quantitative process evaluation. Participants are randomized at 1:1 between the intervention and waitlist controls. Potential participants are within six months of their final child leaving the familial home or within six months of retiring (self-defined), currently not meeting the Canadian PA guidelines, have no serious contraindications to exercise, and are residing in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. Participants are recruited by online and print flyers as well as in-person at community events. The study aims to recruit 40 empty nest and 40 retired participants; half of each group received the intervention during the study period. The internet-delivered intervention is delivered over a 10-week period, comprising 10 modules addressing behavior change techniques associated with PA. Primary outcomes relate to recruitment, attrition, data collection, intervention delivery, and acceptability. Secondary behavioral outcomes are measured at baseline and post-treatment (10 weeks). Intervention-selected participants are invited to an optional qualitative exit interview. The results of this feasibility study will inform the planning of a randomized effectiveness trial, that will examine the behavior change, health-related fitness, and well-being outcomes by exploring how reflexive processes of habit and identity may bridge adoption and maintenance in behavioral adherence.
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 | 0.037 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.074 | 0.015 |
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".