Effects of the Mobility-Fit Physical Activity Program on Strength and Mobility in Older Adults in Assisted Living: A Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity programs focusing on fall prevention often overlook upper-limb strength, which is important for transferring, balance recovery, and arresting a fall. We developed and evaluated a physical activity program, Mobility-Fit for older adults in Assisted Living (AL) that includes upper-limb strengthening, agility, coordination, and balance exercises. Thirty participants (85 ± 6 years) were recruited from two AL facilities; 15 were assigned to Mobility-Fit (three times/week, 45 min/session for 12 weeks) and 15 maintained usual care. Twenty-two participants (11 in each group) completed the study. We compared outcome changes between groups and interviewed participants and staff to explore the effectiveness and feasibility of the program. Among participants who attended Mobility-Fit, knee extension strength increased by 6%, reaction time decreased by 16%, and five-time sit-to-stand duration decreased by 15%. Conversely, participants in the usual care group had a 6% decrease in handgrip strength. Changes of these outcomes were significantly different between two groups (p < 0.05). Participants enjoyed the program and staff suggested some changes to improve attendance. Our results indicate that Mobility-Fit is feasible to deliver and beneficial for older adults in AL and may guide future clinical trials to evaluate the effectiveness of upper limb strengthening on safe mobility of older adults in care facilities.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Non-randomized trial | low |
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".