MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384524944 · doi:10.1186/s40814-023-01346-7

The Geras virtual frailty rehabilitation program to build resilience in older adults with frailty during COVID-19: a randomized feasibility trial

2023· article· en· W4384524944 on OpenAlexafffund
Chinenye Okpara, George Ioannidis, Lehana Thabane, Jonathan D. Adachi, Alexander Rabinovich, Patricia Hewston, Justin Lee, Caitlin McArthur, Courtney Kennedy, Tricia Woo, Pauline Boulos, Raja Bobba, Mimi Wang, Samuel Thrall, Sharon Marr, David Armstrong, Christopher Patterson, Steven R. Bray, Kerstin de Wit, Shyam Maharaj, Brian Misiaszek, Jessica Belgrave Sookhoo, Karen Thompson, Αλεξάνδρα Παπαϊωάννου

Bibliographic record

VenuePilot and Feasibility Studies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFrailty in Older Adults
Canadian institutionsSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityHamilton Health SciencesQueen's UniversityMcMaster UniversityImpact
FundersMcMaster University
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Resilience (materials science)Rehabilitation2019-20 coronavirus outbreakGerontologySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PandemicPsychologyMedicinePhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has exacerbated the risk for poor physical and mental health outcomes among vulnerable older adults. Multicomponent interventions could potentially prevent or reduce the risk of becoming frail; however, there is limited evidence about utilizing alternative modes of delivery where access to in-person care may be challenging. This randomized feasibility trial aimed to understand how a multicomponent rehabilitation program can be delivered remotely to vulnerable older adults with frailty during the pandemic. METHODS: Participants were randomized to either a multimodal or socialization arm. Over a 12-week intervention period, the multimodal group received virtual care at home, which included twice-weekly exercise in small group physiotherapy-led live-streamed sessions, nutrition counselling and protein supplementation, medication consultation via a videoconference app, and once-weekly phone calls from student volunteers, while the socialization group received only once-weekly phone calls from the volunteers. The RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance) framework was used to evaluate the feasibility of the program. The main clinical outcomes were change in the 5-times sit-to-stand test (5 × STS) and Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) scores. The feasibility outcomes were analyzed using descriptive statistics and expressed as frequencies and mean percent with corresponding confidence intervals (CI). Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used for the effectiveness component. RESULTS: The program enrolled 33% (n = 72) of referrals to the study (n = 220), of whom 70 were randomized. Adoption rates from different referral sources were community self-referrals (60%), community organizations (33%), and healthcare providers (25%). At the provider level, implementation rates varied from 75 to 100% for different aspects of program delivery. Participant's adherence levels included virtual exercise sessions 81% (95% CI: 75-88%), home-based exercise 50% (95% CI: 38-62%), protein supplements consumption 68% (95% CI: 55-80%), and medication optimization 38% (95% CI: 21-59%). Most participants (85%) were satisfied with the program. There were no significant changes in clinical outcomes between the two arms. CONCLUSION: The GERAS virtual frailty rehabilitation study for community-dwelling older adults living with frailty was feasible in terms of reach of participants, adoption across referral settings, adherence to implementation, and participant's intention to maintain the program. This program could be feasibly delivered to improve access to socially isolated older adults where barriers to in-person participation exist. However, trials with larger samples and longer follow-up are required to demonstrate effectiveness and sustained behavior change. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04500366. Registered August 5, 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04500366.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePilot and Feasibility StudiesSame topicFrailty in Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207