Sit‐to‐stand activity to improve mobility in older people: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To identify the current state of knowledge about the use of the sit-to-stand intervention with older people and to identify implications for further research. BACKGROUND: Many older people experience mobility challenges which can negatively affect their well-being. Physical activities are vital to improving or maintaining mobility. Although there is evidence that mobility challenged older people benefit from the sit-to-stand intervention, there is a need to systematically examine the state of knowledge about this intervention. DESIGN: Scoping review using Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework. METHODS: A systematic search of three databases was completed. Abstracts were evaluated for relevance using predetermined inclusion criteria. Studies that met the inclusion criteria had data extracted and were appraised for internal and external validity. Narrative synthesis was based on methods described by Popay and colleagues. RESULTS: Of 3,041 papers, six studies met the inclusion criteria. Publications provided a range of sit-to-stand interventions with durations varying from four weeks to six months. The frequency of each intervention fluctuated from three to seven times/week with a duration of 15-45 min. Different professionals prompted the activity. Three themes were identified the following: (a) sit-to-stand activity as an intervention; (b) generalisability of findings; and (c) sustainability. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the studies reviewed indicated improvements in performance of the sit-to-stand activity and in motor function. However, issues with studies rigour do not allow us to make generalisations. Further research is needed to confirm the effectiveness of the intervention. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Healthcare providers are expected to offer evidence-based patient care. This review details current knowledge about the sit-to-stand intervention with older people.
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 | 0.012 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".