Feasibility of an online, mental health‐informed lifestyle program for people aged 60+ years during the COVID‐19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ISSUE ADDRESSED: The COVID-19 pandemic and associated social distancing regulations have disproportionally impacted the health of older adults. Lifestyle interventions targeting physical activity, diet and fostering social connection may help to alleviate the potential negative health consequences. This study aimed to determine the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of delivering an online group lifestyle intervention for older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Adults aged 60+, living in Australia were recruited to a single-arm feasibility study of a 6-week program delivered via a private Facebook group between June-August 2020. Facilitators provided motivation and education on weekly topics including goal setting and reducing sedentary behaviour in the form of Facebook posts and group video calls. Primary outcomes included feasibility and acceptability and secondary outcomes included psychological distress, quality of life (AQoL-6D), functioning, loneliness and physical activity (PA) with assessments conducted at baseline, post-intervention and 4-week follow-up. RESULTS: N = 11 participants were recruited and n = 10 (91%) completed the post-assessment questionnaires. High acceptability was observed and exploratory analysis from pre-post intervention found evidence of an effect on secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: A mental health informed lifestyle program delivered online via Facebook appears feasible and well-accepted among older adults and may help to prevent some of the consequences of inactivity and social isolation associated with the pandemic. SO WHAT?: Online lifestyle interventions appear safe and may provide a scalable, cost-effective strategy for protecting the physical and mental health of older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".