MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Comparing Online And In-person Delivery Of An Exercise Program For Older Adults

2022· article· en· W4294819899 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vanessa Pitre, Martin Sénéchal, Danielle R. B̀ouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttendanceMental healthCardiorespiratory fitnessPhysical therapyTest (biology)MedicineAnxietyDropout (neural networks)GerontologyFlexibility (engineering)PsychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many exercise programs to provide participants with online delivery. Online delivery increases accessibility, but their ability to improve perceived and mental health, and functional outcomes in older adults is unknown. Therefore, there is a need to test the efficacy of online delivery compared with in person delivery in older adults. PURPOSE: To compare perceived mental health, and functional outcomes following an online exercise program offered to older adults and compare the benefits with in-person delivery. METHODS: The Zoomers on the Go program is a peer-led exercise program of 12 weeks. The program offers resistance exercise, aerobic activities, balance, and flexibility two times per week to adults aged 50 and above. The main outcome was power as measured by the 30-second chair stand test. Secondary outcomes included dropout, attendance, balance (one leg stance), cardiorespiratory fitness (2-minute step test or 6-minute walk test), perceived health (SF-36), and mental health (Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale - 21 Items). RESULTS: The proportion of dropout was 28.1% and 11.5% in the online and the in-person group respectively (p < 0.001). A total of 74 participants (66.3 ± 7.1 years old) in the online group and 84 participants in the in-person group (67.3 ± 7.2 years old) completed the program. The attendance was 19.6 ± 4.8 sessions for the online group and 16.7 ± 2.9 sessions for the in-person group (p < 0.001) out of 24. Participants in both groups improved significantly their 30 seconds chair stand (online: 14.4 ± 2.7 to 17.0 ± 4.2 vs. in person: 14.1 ± 4.2 to 17.5 ± 5.1; all p < 0.001), cardiorespiratory fitness, and balance without any difference between groups. However, only the in-person group improved general perceived health measured by SF-36 questionnaire. Similarly, only the in-person group significantly reduced the level of stress and depression following the program (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Exercise program delivered online leads to greater attendance and similar improvement in physical function in older adults compared to in person delivery. However, in-person delivery might be needed to improve stress, depression symptoms, and perceived general health in older adults. Funding: Healthy Seniors Pilot Project- Public Health Agency of Canada

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicine & Science in Sports & Exercise→Same topicPhysical Activity and Health→French-language works237,207→