Health-related quality of life and balance confidence among participants in a senior community-based exercise (SWIFT) program compared to age matched controls: a cross-sectional study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Staying Well, Independent and Fit Together (SWIFT), a seniors' exercise program, aims to promote health, strength, mobility and community engagement. We compared quality of life and balance confidence in SWIFT participants and non-participants, aged 60 years and older. METHODS: Cross-sectional study comparing participants and non-participants in SWIFT program using Older People's Quality of Life Questionnaire (OPQOL) and Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABCS). RESULTS: Seventy participants completed surveys, 41 in experimental and 29 in control group. We found a statistically significant between group difference favoring the control group in overall OPQOL score but not in OPQOL subscale nor overall ABCS scores. Participants in both groups participating in weekly exercises had non-significantly higher quality of life subscale scores. CONCLUSION: Results suggest seniors in both study groups who participate in exercise have non-significantly higher quality of life scores compared to those who do not participate in exercise. Participation in the SWIFT exercise program or activity in general, contributes to quality of life in seniors.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".