Physical Activity Supported by Low-Cost Mobile Technology for Back Pain (PAT-Back) to Reduce Disability in Older Adults: Results of a Feasibility Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of a randomized controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of a multimodal program (PAT-Back) compared to best practice advice on pain and disability in older adults with chronic low back pain (LBP) in primary care. METHODS: This feasibility study took place in Fortaleza, Northeast Brazil. The PAT-Back intervention consisted of a program including exercises, pain education, and motivational text messages for the in-home component. The control group received an evidence-based educational booklet. Feasibility outcomes were recruitment, adherence and retention rates, level of difficulty of the education and intervention content, perception of utility of mobile technology, and adverse events. The feasibility criteria were previously defined. RESULTS: A total of 248 people were screened, of which 46 older adults were eligible. The retention rate was high (100% in the PAT-Back group and 95% in the control group). The adherence rate to intervention was partially met (60%), whereas the adherence rate to unsupervised exercises was adequate (75%), and perception about safety to perform home exercise was partially acceptable (70%) in the PAT-Back group. In addition, 100% of older adults reported which text messages motivated them to perform the exercises in the PAT-Back group. Difficulty reported by participants in understanding and performing the intervention was small in both groups. Six participants reported transient adverse events in both groups. CONCLUSION: Older adults accepted both interventions. Results demonstrated that the program is feasible, although minor changes targeting adherence and safety in home exercise are needed. IMPACT: This feasibility study supports progression to a full trial investigating the effectiveness of a multimodal program (PAT-Back) on pain and disability in older adults with chronic LBP within a primary health care setting in low to middle income countries where such data from the older population are scarce and the burden of LBP is increasing.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".