Effect of community-based group exercises combined with action observation on physical and cognitive performance in older adults during the Covid-19 pandemic: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the impact of community-based exercises with action observation therapy (AOT) on the physical and cognitive performance of older adults experiencing social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: One hundred participants aged 65-80 years were randomly divided into two groups: the AOT group, which engaged in balance, strengthening, and mobility exercises guided by 15-minute action observation videos before a 45-minute exercise session, and the control group, which performed the same exercises without action observation. Both groups underwent three sessions per week for eight weeks (24 sessions in total). The assessment tools used in this study included the following: For evaluating mobility and fall risk in older adults, the Timed Up-and-Go (TUG) Test was employed. To assess functional strength of lower extremities, balance, and fall risk, the Five Times Sit-to-Stand (5XSST) Test was administered. Balance and gait were measured using the Tinetti Balance and Gait Assessment (TBGA), utilizing the Tinetti Scale. Individuals' confidence in performing daily activities without falling or losing balance was assessed using the Activities-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (ABC). Furthermore, cognitive functions across multiple domains, including attention-concentration, executive function, memory, language, visual construction skills, abstract thinking, calculation, and orientation, were evaluated using the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) Tests. RESULTS: Results revealed significant improvements in both groups. Group I, which received Action Observation Therapy (AOT) in addition to exercise, demonstrated superior outcomes in the 5XSit-to-Stand test (Δ = -1.92, p < 0.0001, Cohen's d = 0.77), Tinetti Balance and Gait Scale (Balance: Δ = 2.77, p < 0.0001, Cohen's d = 0.91), and Timed Up and Go test (Δ = -1.98, p < 0.0005, Cohen's d = 0.83). On the other hand, Group II, which received exercise only, exhibited substantial gains in the Tinetti Balance and Gait Scale (Walking: Δ = 0.52, p < 0.01, Cohen's d = 0.27) and Activity-Specific Balance Confidence Scale (Δ = 5.77, p < 0.0001, Cohen's d = 0.26). CONCLUSION: These findings underscore the effectiveness of AOT-enhanced community-based exercises in enhancing both physical and cognitive performance among older adults facing social isolation during the pandemic, with Group I (AOT + exercise) showing particularly promising results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04759690, ClinicalTrials Protocol ID: p3957ghb.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".