Outdoor Community Ambulation Interventions to Improve Physical and Mental Health in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited community ambulation, defined as independent mobility outside the home, predicts adverse outcomes in older adults. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine outdoor community ambulation intervention effectiveness in older adults. We searched six databases until October 2021. Studies with an evaluative research objective, older adult population, and outdoor community ambulation interventions were eligible. After reviewing 23,172 records, five studies were included. The meta-analysis found no significant difference in walking endurance and depression outcomes between outdoor community ambulation and comparison interventions. For outcomes not suitable for meta-analysis, studies showed no significant difference in walking activity, anxiety, and general and health-related quality of life, and possible improvements in gait speed and lower extremity function and strength. Most evidence was of low to very low certainty. Considering the limited evidence base, the design, implementation, and evaluation of outdoor community ambulation interventions in older adults should be prioritized in primary research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".