Feasibility and Acceptability of Remote Physical Exercise Programs to Prevent Mobility Loss in Pre-Disabled Older Adults during Isolation Periods Such as the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of remote physical exercise (PE) to prevent mobility loss among pre-disabled older adults during the COVID-19 lockdowns. Participants followed a 12-week PE remote program in Zoom© supervised groups (Web-Ex group, n=11) or phone-supervised individual booklet-based home-program (Booklet group, n=33). The total rate of adherence was 82.5% in the Web-Ex group and 85.8% in the Booklet group. The level of satisfaction was « a lot » for 60% of the participants in the Web-ex group and for 37.9% of those included in the Booklet group. Respectively 10% and 31% of the participants rated the difficulty as « low » in the web-ex and Booklet groups. Remote physical exercise using a web technology or booklets at home with regular and personalized follow-up during the lockdown was feasible and acceptable among pre-disabled seniors.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".