MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091854901 · doi:10.1136/bjsports-2020-102465

Physical activity is good for older adults—but is programme implementation being overlooked? A systematic review of intervention studies that reported frameworks or measures of implementation

2020· review· en· W3091854901 on OpenAlexaff
Samantha M. Gray, Heather McKay, Lindsay Nettlefold, Douglas Race, Heather Macdonald, Patti‐Jean Naylor, Joanie Sims‐Gould

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Sports Medicine · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)Intervention (counseling)Context (archaeology)Implementation researchPsychologyGerontologyApplied psychologyPsychological interventionMedicinePsychiatryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine older adult physical activity (PA) intervention studies that evaluated implementation and/or scale-up. Research question 1: What implementation and/or scale-up indicators (specific, observable and measurable characteristics that show the progress of implementation) were reported? Research question 2: What implementation and/or scale-up frameworks were reported? Research question 3: Did studies evaluate the relationship between implementation or scale-up of the intervention and individual level health/behaviour outcomes? If yes, how? DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Publications from electronic databases and hand searches (2000 to December 2019). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Any PA intervention studies with community-dwelling older adult participants (mean age ≥60 years). Required indicators: (a) Must report amount of PA as an outcome, with validated self-report or objective measures, and (b) Must have reported at least one implementation or scale-up framework and/or one implementation or scale-up indicator. RESULTS: 137 studies were included for research question 1, 11 for question 2 and 22 for question 3. 137 studies reported an implementation indicator: 14 unique indicators. None were specified as indicators for scale-up evaluation. 11 studies were guided by an implementation or scale-up framework. 22 studies described a relationship between an implementation indicator and an individual-level health outcome. CONCLUSION: There is need for implementation research that extends beyond analysis at the individual level, includes clearly defined indicators and provides a guiding framework to support PA initiatives in older adults. Such implementation studies should evaluate factors in the broader context (eg,political, environmental) that influence scale-up. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42018091839.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.091
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.276
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.483

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0910.276
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.008
Bibliometrics0.0100.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.491
GPT teacher head0.649
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Sports MedicineSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207