Older Adults’ Experiences of a Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Intervention: A Nested Qualitative Study in the SITLESS Multi-Country Randomised Clinical Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The SITLESS programme comprises exercise referral schemes and self-management strategies and has been evaluated in a trial in Denmark, Spain, Germany and Northern Ireland. The aim of this qualitative study was to understand the implementation and contextual aspects of the intervention in relation to the mechanisms of impact and to explore the perceived effects. METHODS: Qualitative methodologies were nested in the SITLESS trial including 71 individual interviews and 12 focus groups targeting intervention and control group participants from postintervention to 18-month follow-up in all intervention sites based on a semi-structured topic guide. RESULTS: Overarching themes were identified under the framework categories of context, implementation, mechanisms of impact and perceived effects. The findings highlight the perceived barriers and facilitators to older adults' engagement in exercise referral schemes. Social interaction and enjoyment through the group-based programmes are key components to promote adherence and encourage the maintenance of targeted behaviours through peer support and connectedness. Exit strategies and signposting to relevant classes and facilities enabled the maintenance of positive lifestyle behaviours. CONCLUSIONS: When designing and implementing interventions, key components enhancing social interaction, enjoyment and continuity should be in place in order to successfully promote sustained behaviour change.
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 | 0.048 | 0.049 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".