Group‐based exercise interventions for community‐dwelling older people in Southeast Asia: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Southeast Asia (SEA) is a rapidly ageing and a diversely populated region that requires strategies to maintain its populations' physical activity and sense of well‐being. While the benefits of group exercise programs are known, the characteristics and types of exercises in terms of their effectiveness for physical function and fidelity of the programs have yet to be defined within this population. Methods Ovid, MEDLINE, Scopus, PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), EBSCOHOST, Cochrane library and Open Grey databases were searched to identify relevant studies. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro Scale and the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS). Meta‐analysis was undertaken when the same outcome measures were reported in a minimum of two studies with appropriate data. (PROSPERO: CRD42020177317). Results Eleven studies with 900 participants were included, out of which 395 participants were allocated to group exercise programs and 383 completed the program. Culturally adapted Thai dance programs and multicomponent exercise programs were the most‐commonly reported group exercises. The Timed Up and Go test (TUG) and attendance rates were the most‐frequently reported outcomes. Meta‐analysis demonstrated significant improvement in physical function assessed using the Timed Up and Go test (Random effect model −1.27 s, 95% CI −1.65, −0.88, I 2 = 74%). In two studies, adherence (81% and 94%) and dropout rates (4% and 19%) were reported. Conclusions Group‐based exercise programs in Southeast Asia consisting mostly of culturally adapted Thai dance programs and multicomponent exercise programs appear to have positive effects on physical function. However, better descriptions of fidelity, including adherence, are required in future studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".