Feasibility, Acceptability, and Impact of a self-guided e-learning Memory and Brain Health Promotion Program for Healthy Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the feasibility (e.g., completion rate), acceptability (e.g., satisfaction), and participant-reported impact (e.g., memory concerns, behavior change, goal attainment) of a self-guided, e-learning adaptation of a validated, facilitator-guided, in-person memory intervention for older adults. METHODS: Participants were 139 healthy older adults (mean age: 73 ± 7, 73% women). Participation tracking and pre/post questionnaires embedded within the e-learning program were used to assess feasibility, acceptability, and impact. RESULTS: Sixty-eight percent of participants completed the program. Anonymous feedback data indicated a high level of satisfaction with the program, the pace and clarity of the learning modules, and the user interface. Suggested improvements included offering more interaction with others and addressing minor platform glitches. There was a 41% decrease in the prevalence of concern about memory changes from baseline to posttest. The majority of participants reported an increase in use of memory strategies and uptake of health-promoting lifestyle behaviors. All participants reported moderate-to-high satisfaction with personal goal attainment. CONCLUSIONS: The program demonstrated good feasibility, acceptability, and lead to reduction in age-related memory concerns. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Self-guided, e-learning programming shows promise for fostering positive adaptation to age-related memory changes and improving the uptake of evidence-based strategies to promote brain health among older adults.
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".