Exploring the Attendance and Potential Benefits of Reducing Sitting Time for Residents in a Canadian Long-Term Care Setting: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to assess the attendance to a novel intervention aiming to reduce sitting time in a long-term care facility and exploring the potential functional benefits. Methods: The intervention consisted of research staff visiting a resident to promote standing for 10-minute sessions, three times per day (morning, afternoon and evening), 4 days per week (Monday-Wednesday-Friday and Sunday) over 10 weeks. The main outcome was attendance. Functional outcomes included walking speed, power, and strength. Results: A total of 28 participants agree to participate and 24 completed the trial. The average attendance averaged four sessions per week and averaged 45 minutes of standing weekly out of 120 minutes offered. Attendance was highest during the morning session ( p = .02) and weekdays ( p < .01). There was a significant improvement in the 30-second chair stand test ( p < .05). Conclusion: Although well accepted, the attendance was low. Based on the information gathered suggestions can be made to improve the intervention, attendance, and potential benefits of such intervention.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".