Web-Based Versus Print-Based Physical Activity Intervention for Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Crossover Randomized Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Fewer than half of older German adults engage in the recommended levels of endurance training. Objective The study aim is to compare the acceptance and effectiveness of two interventions for physical activity (PA) promotion among initially inactive community-dwelling older adults ≥60 years in a 9-month, crossover randomized trial. Methods Participants were recruited in person and randomized to one of the following interventions for self-monitoring PA: a print-based intervention (PRINT: 113/242, 46.7%) or a web-based intervention (WEB: 129/242, 53.3%). Furthermore, 29.5% (38/129) of those in the web-based intervention group received a PA tracker in addition to WEB (WEB+). After randomization, the participants and researchers were not blinded. The participants’ baseline intervention preferences were retrospectively assessed. All the intervention groups were offered 10 weekly face-to-face group sessions. Afterward, participants could choose to stay in their group or cross over to one of the other groups, and group sessions were continued monthly for another 6 months. 3D accelerometers to assess PA and sedentary behavior (SB) at baseline (T0), 3-month follow-up (T1), and 9-month follow-up (T2) were used. Adherence to PA recommendations, attendance of group sessions, and intervention acceptance were assessed using self-administered paper-based questionnaires. Linear mixed models were used to calculate differences in moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA) and SB between time points and intervention groups. Results Of the 242 initially recruited participants, 91 (37.6%) were randomized to the WEB group; 38 (15.7%) to the WEB+ group; and 113 (46.7%) to the PRINT group. Overall, 80.6% (195/242) of the participants completed T1. Only 0.4% (1/242) of the participants changed from the WEB group to the PRINT group and 6.2% (15/242) moved from the PRINT group to the WEB group (WEB-WEB: 103/249, (41.4%); PRINT-PRINT: 76/249, 30.5%) when offered to cross over at T1. Furthermore, 66.1% (160/242) of participants completed T2. MVPA in minutes per day increased between baseline and T1, but these within-group changes disappeared after adjusting for covariates. MVPA decreased by 9 minutes per day between baseline and T2 (βtime=−9.37, 95% CI −18.58 to −0.16), regardless of the intervention group (WEB vs PRINT: βgroup*time=−3.76, 95% CI −13.33 to 5.82, WEB+ vs PRINT: βgroup*time=1.40, 95% CI −11.04 to 13.83). Of the participants, 18.6% (38/204) met the PA recommendations at T0, 16.4% (26/159) at T1, and 20.3% (28/138) at T2. For SB, there were no significant group differences or group-by-time interactions at T1 or T2. Intervention acceptance was generally high. The use of intervention material was high to moderate at T1 and decreased by T2. Conclusions There was little movement between intervention groups at T1 when given the choice, and participation was not associated with increases in PA or decreases in SB over time. Trial Registration German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00016073; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00016073
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 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".