Response and Adherence of Nursing Home Residents to a Nutrition/Exercise Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Interindividual response variability to nutrition and exercise interventions is extensive in older adults. A group of nursing home (NH) residents participated in a combined intervention. The objective of this post-hoc analysis was to identify factors associated with intervention response measured by change in physical function and body composition. DESIGN: Post-hoc analyses in the Older Person's Exercise and Nutrition study, a 2-arm randomized trial. The primary outcomes were 30-second Chair Stand Test and composite scores combining physical function and fat-free mass. A secondary outcome was intervention adherence. A 12-week intervention of sit-to-stand exercises and protein-rich nutritional supplements did not improve chair-stand capacity vs control on intention-to-treat basis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Residents ≥75 years of age from dementia and somatic units in eight NHs in Sweden. METHODS: Logistic regressions were performed to define factors associated with response (maintenance/improvement) or nonresponse (deterioration) in 30-second Chair Stand Test, and with intervention adherence. Linear regressions were performed to explore factors associated with response in composite scores. RESULTS: Mean age of participants (n = 52 intervention, n = 49 control) was 85.8 years. Sarcopenia was occurring in 74%. Sarcopenia at baseline (P = .005) and high adherence to nutritional supplements (P = .002) increased the odds of response. Higher independence in daily activities increased the odds of adherence to sit-to-stand exercises (P = .027) and the combined intervention (P = .020). Allocation to the intervention group and higher self-perceived health were associated with higher composite scores. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: NH residents with baseline sarcopenia, better self-perceived health, and high adherence to nutritional supplements benefitted most from a combined nutrition and exercise intervention regarding chair-stand capacity and composite scores of function and fat-free mass. Adherence was related to higher grade of independence. Understanding factors associated with response and adherence to an intervention will help target susceptible residents in most need of support and to optimize the outcome.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".