Implementing and Evaluating an Older Adult Physical Activity Model at Scale: Framework for Action
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Most research intervention trials demonstrate efficacy in selected samples. However, to improve population health, interventions that prove efficacious or effective in a research setting need to be delivered at scale. Despite this, relatively little attention has been paid to mechanisms and factors that support scaling up effective interventions. Thus, the purpose of this article is to describe the conceptual frameworks that guide implementation at scale of an evidence-based physical activity strategy for older adults (Choose to Move), our partnership approach to implementation and scale-up, and the methods we adopted to evaluate implementation and impact of this scaled-up model on older adults' physical activity, mobility, and social connectedness. From a socioecologic perspective, we describe 1) the design of the Choose to Move intervention, 2) the partnerships with key delivery organizations, 3) the implementation and scale-up frameworks that guide our approach, 4) the delivery of Choose to Move at scale, and 5) the protocols we will adopt to evaluate implementation and impact of Choose to Move. We adopt a type 2 hybrid effectiveness–implementation pre- and post-study design guided by scale-up, implementation, and evaluation frameworks. Specifically, we will first evaluate contextual factors that influence the implementation of Choose to Move. Second, we will evaluate effectiveness of Choose to Move on older adults' physical activity, sedentary time, capacity for mobility, and social connectedness using mixed methods. To address the escalating proportion of older adults that comprise our population and low levels of physical activity among them, it seems timely to refocus away from small-scale interventions. Should Choose to Move, a scalable, evidence-based physical activity model, be successfully delivered at scale, our approach has great implications to enhance older adult health at the population level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".