Effects of Physical Activity on Physical and Mental Health of Older Adults Living in Care Settings: A Systematic Review of Meta-Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies included in meta-analyses have highlighted the effects of physical activity on the physical and psychological health of older adults living in care settings. We conducted a systematic review of meta-analyses, of institutionalized older adults, to evaluate and conduct a narrative synthesis of the results of these meta-analyses. A literature search was conducted in three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library) until 22 March 2023. After screening the identified articles with the PRISMA criteria filters, we included 11 meta-analyses in this systematic review. Higgins' (2013) assessment tool of the meta-analyses demonstrates that the studies were of good quality although future meta-analyses need to provide more information on the treatment of missing data. A summary of the results of these meta-analyses shows that physical activity reduces the rate of falls, mobility issues, functional dependence, and depression, and improves health status. Future studies need to focus on new ways to promote and adapt physical activities to increase the participation of older adults in care settings.
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 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 | 0.019 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".