MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210546406 · doi:10.4235/agmr.21.0095

The Impact of the Otago Exercise Program on Frailty and Empowerment in Older Nursing Home Residents: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2022· article· en· W4210546406 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sevnaz Şahin, Fisun Şenuzun Aykar, Yasemin Yıldırım, Parinaz Jahanpeyma

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Geriatric Medicine and Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialEmpowermentMedicinePhysical therapyIntervention (counseling)Nursing homesNursingGerontologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the impact of Otago exercises on frailty and empowerment in older nursing home residents. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial included 72 individuals aged over 65 years residing in a single nursing home in Izmir, Turkey. The participants were randomly assigned to the Otago exercise group (OEG) or control group (CG). The OEG performed Otago exercises for 45 minutes, 3 days per week for 12 weeks plus a walking program the 3 other days of the week. In addition to Otago exercise training, the OEG received training based on empowerment consisting of 10 sessions lasting 30 minutes each. The CG received no intervention except routine care in the nursing home. The data collected were sociodemographic characteristics, Edmonton Frail Scale (EFS) scores, and Elderly Empowerment Scale (EES) scores before and 3 months after the intervention. RESULTS: We observed significant differences between the mean EFS (p=0.0001) and mean EES (p=0.0001) before and 3 months after the intervention in the OEG compared to the CG. We also observed a significant difference between the OEG and CG in mean EFS (p=0.018) and EES (p=0.0001) 3 months after the intervention. CONCLUSION: The results of the present study demonstrated the positive impact of the Otago exercise program on preventing/delaying frailty and enhancing empowerment in older people.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.522

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.382 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Geriatric Medicine and ResearchSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207