Feasibility of Lifestyle Redesign® for community‐dwelling older adults with and without disabilities: Results from an exploratory descriptive qualitative clinical research design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although Lifestyle Redesign® has been shown to be effective in improving older adults' health and well-being, little is known about the feasibility of implementing this programme to develop meaningful and health-promoting routines of community-dwelling older adults in Canada. This study thus aimed to explore the feasibility of implementing a culturally-adapted 6-month version of Lifestyle Redesign® with community-dwelling older French-Canadians with and without disabilities. METHODS: An exploratory descriptive qualitative clinical research design was used with 17 older adults living at home or in a seniors' residence, divided into two groups participating in Lifestyle Redesign®. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants and the occupational therapist who delivered the programme and recorded clinical notes. FINDINGS: Participants were aged between 65 and 90; they were mainly women (n = 11; 64.7%), and seven (41.2%) had disabilities. The intervention was tailored to the participants' needs, interests, and capacities in each group (e.g. modules selected, number of individual sessions, and assistance of volunteer). Over the 6-month period, older adults participated in an average of about 25 group sessions with the occupational therapist and in four or five outings with their group (e.g. restaurant, market, and museum) and attended between 5 and 11 individual sessions with the occupational therapist. The most common reasons for missing group sessions were being ill, working, or having another appointment. Personal facilitators and barriers to participation in the intervention were mainly related to abilities, needs, spiritual life, and health. Environmental facilitators were mostly the regularity of the sessions, group, and external support, including human resources to deliver the intervention, whereas barriers were the residence's time restrictions and staff's attitudes, cost of some activities targeted in the programme, and transportation problems. CONCLUSION: Lifestyle Redesign® is a feasible preventive occupational therapy intervention for community-dwelling older French-Canadians. These findings will guide future studies including large-scale clinical trials.
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 | 0.043 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".