A park-based group mobility program for older adults with difficulty walking outdoors: a quantitative process evaluation of the Getting Older Adults Outdoors (GO-OUT) randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Process evaluations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of community exercise programs are important to help explain the results of a trial and provide evidence of the feasibility for community implementation. The objectives of this process evaluation for a multi-centre RCT of outdoor walking interventions for older adults with difficulty walking outdoors, were to determine: 1) implementation fidelity (the extent to which elements of the intervention were delivered as specified in the original protocol) and 2) participant engagement (the receipt of intervention components by the participants) in the Getting Older Adults Outdoors (GO-OUT) trial. Methods GO-OUT participants attended an active 1-day workshop designed to foster safe, outdoor walking skills. After the workshop, 190 people at 4 sites were randomized to an outdoor walk group (OWG) ( n = 98) which met 2x/week for 10 weeks, or the weekly reminders (WR) group ( n = 92) which received a phone reminder 1x/week for 10 weeks. The OWG had 5 components – warm-up, continuous distance walk, task-oriented walking activities, 2 nd continuous distance walk, and cool-down. Data on implementation fidelity and participant engagement were gathered during the study through site communications, use of standardized forms, reflective notes of the OWG leaders, and accelerometry and GPS assessment of participants during 2 weeks of the OWG. Results All sites implemented the workshop according to the protocol. Participants were engaged in all 8 activity stations of the workshop. WR were provided to 96% of the participants in the WR intervention group. The 5 components of the OWG sessions were implemented in over 95% of the sessions, as outlined in the protocol. Average attendance in the OWG was not high – 15% of participants did not attend any sessions and 64% of participants in the OWG attended > 50% of the sessions. Evaluations with accelerometry and GPS during week 3 and 9 OWG sessions suggest that participants who attended were engaged and active during the OWG. Conclusions This process evaluation helps explain the main study findings and demonstrates the flexibility required in the protocol for safe and feasible community implementation. Future research could explore the use of additional behaviour change strategies to optimize attendance for community implementation. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03292510 Date of registration: September 25, 2017.
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 | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".