Effects of Community-Based Physical-Cognitive Training, Health Education, and Reablement among Rural Community-Dwelling Older Adults with Mobility Deficits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reablement services are approaches for maintaining and improving the functional independence of older adults. Previous reablement studies were conducted in a home environment. Due to the limited evidence on the effects of multicomponent interventions and reablement in a community-based context, this study aimed to develop and evaluate the effect of community-based physical–cognitive training, health education, and reablement (PCHER) among rural community-dwelling older adults with mobility deficits. The trial was conducted in rural areas of New Taipei City, Taiwan. Older adults with mild to moderate mobility deficits were recruited from six adult daycare centers, and a cluster assignment was applied in a counterbalanced order. The experimental group (n = 16) received a PCHER intervention, comprising 1.5 h of group courses and 1 h of individualized reablement training, while the control group (n = 12) underwent PCHE intervention, comprising 1.5 h of group courses and 1 h of placebo treatment. A 2.5-h training session was completed weekly for 10 weeks. The outcome measures contained the de Morton Mobility Index (DEMMI), the Saint Louis University Mental Status (SLUMS) Examination, the Barthel Index (BI), the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB), and the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM). The PCHER significantly improved the DEMMI, SLUMS, BI, SPPB, and COPM (all p < 0.05), with medium-to-large effect sizes. PCHER also showed an advantage over PCHE in terms of the SPPB (p = 0.02). This study verified that combining individualized reablement with group-based multicomponent training was superior to group courses alone in enhancing the functional abilities of community-dwelling older adults with mobility deficits.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".