Feasibility of a Virtual Health-Promoting Intervention (Choose to Move) for Older Adults: A Rapid Adaptation in Response to COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To support older adults during the first wave of COVID-19, we rapidly adapted our effective health-promoting intervention (Choose to Move [CTM]) for virtual delivery in British Columbia, Canada. The intervention was delivered (April-October 2020) to 33 groups of older adults ("programs") who were a convenience sample (had previously completed CTM in person; n = 153; 86% female; 73 [6] years). We compared implementation outcomes (recruitment, dose received, retention, and completion of virtual data collection) to predetermined feasibility targets. We assessed mobility, physical activity, and social health outcomes pre- and postintervention (3 months) with validated surveys. We met most (dose received, retention, and virtual data collection), but not all (recruitment), feasibility targets. Approximately two thirds of older adults maintained or improved mobility, physical activity, and social health outcomes at 3 months. It was feasible to implement and evaluate CTM virtually. In future, virtual CTM could help us reach homebound older adults and/or serve as support during public health emergencies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".