The Effects of a Walking Intervention on Gait Parameters in Older Adults Residing in Long-Term Care: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We examined the effects of a walking intervention in older adults residing in long-term care (LTC) homes on gait velocity (primary outcome), and stride length, cadence and heel-to-heel base of support (secondary outcomes) compared to those in an interpersonal interaction control group and a care-as-usual control group at 16-weeks post-intervention. METHODS: These previously unpublished gait data were collected as part of a larger prospective, randomized, three group study. One hundred and sixty-eight participants residing in 12 LTC homes were randomized into: a) a walking group (n=57) - 1:1 supervised, individualized, progressive, 30 minutes, five times a week walking program for 16 weeks; b) an interpersonal interaction group (n=55) - stationary 1:1 conversation time with research personnel; and, c) a care-as-usual control group (n=56). Gait was assessed at baseline and 16-weeks post-intervention using the GAITRite® computerized system. One-way Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), controlling for age, sex, cognitive status and baseline gait parameter (velocity, stride length, cadence, heel-to-heel base of support) was used to examine differences among groups for velocity, stride length, cadence, and heel-to-heel base of support at 16-weeks post-intervention. RESULTS: Ninety-one participants with available data were included in this analysis: walking group (n=31/57, mean age=82.77±6.75 years); interpersonal interaction group (n=31/55, mean age=82.74±9.27 years); care-as-usual control group (n=29/56, mean age=85.40±8.78 years). ANCOVA showed a significant difference in the mean gait velocity at 16-weeks post-intervention [F(2, 84) =6.99, p=0.0006); η2 (95%CI)=0.16 (0.02, 0.27)]. Post hoc comparisons using Sidak test showed that the estimated marginal mean (EMM) for velocity for the walking group [EMM (SE), 0.51m/s (0.03)] was significantly higher compared to the interpersonal interaction group [EMM (SE), 0.38m/s (0.03); t(83)=3.15, p=0.007] and the care-as-usual control group [EMM (SE), 0.38m/s (0.03)]; t(83)=3.32, p=0.004]. No significant difference was observed between groups for stride length, cadence or heel-to-heel base of support. CONCLUSION: LTC residents with limited physical functioning showed significant improvement in gait velocity but not in stride length, cadence or heel-to-heel base of support after a 16-week walking intervention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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".