The Effect of Lifestyle Interventions on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Participation Domain in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) recognizes participation in life situations as a major component of health. Identifying interventions that target this component is critical, particularly in older adulthood, where declines in physical functioning can impact participation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of lifestyle or behavior change interventions on the ICF participation domain in older adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), AgeLine (EBSCO), PsycINFO (Ovid), and AMED (Ovid) were searched from inception to April 2020 for randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of any behavior change or lifestyle intervention to usual care among community-dwelling adults ≥60 years with respect to participation-related domains of the ICF. The protocol was registered with Prospero (CRD42019125334). RESULTS: Eight studies with a total of 1,548 participants were included. No significant effect on participation outcomes was found (standardized mean difference 0.04; 95% CI -0.19 to 0.26; p = .76) and the quality of evidence was judged to be very low. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Lifestyle or behavior change interventions showed limited effect on participation in later life. However, there remains much uncertainty in the estimate of this effect due, in part, to the low quality of the included studies. Measurement tools that are responsive to changes in participation in older adulthood should be used to determine the effect of such interventions. Improving study design will lead to more efficacious interventions that promote participation for our aging population.
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 | 0.016 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".