“It’s better than nothing, but I do not find it to be ideal”: Older adults’ experience of TeleRehab during the first COVID-19 lockdown
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study used descriptive thematic analysis to explore the experiences of 16 older adults (age: 71 ± 6.4) who transitioned from an in-person to telerehabilitation (TeleRehab) group intervention in March 2020. We found the following themes: (1A) Technology Use, describing challenges and need for support; and (1B) Technology Self-Efficacy, describing how technological ability was attributed to past-experience and/or age. Four themes described the intervention experience. First, "Not The Same, But Better Than Nothing" (2A), reflected a preference for in-person intervention. Specifically, in-person training provided a better social experience (theme 2B), and stronger accountability, although the content was well delivered in both modalities (theme 2C). Contextual factors (theme 2D) that played a role were ease of commute, especially important during the winter, and the context of the lockdown, that positioned the TeleRehab intervention as a meaningful social activity. However, sensory impairments, and/or distractions in the home diminished the TeleRehab experience.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".