ACCEPTABILITY OF HIGH-INTENSITY FUNCTIONAL STRENGTH TRAINING AT HOME FOR POSTINJURY OLDER ADULTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Regular exercise plays a vital role in optimizing aging and preventing functional decline. Despite the recognized benefit of exercise, adherence is challenging, and acceptability of exercise interventions is crucial. Acceptability is influenced by various factors, including content, context, and delivery. The purpose of this qualitative descriptive study is to determine the acceptability to older adult participants of a home-based high-intensity functional strength training (HIFST) intervention delivered by a physiotherapist via videoconferencing. HIFST involves the use of periods of ‘hard’ effort using everyday strength-building movements alternating with ‘easy’ recovery periods. This study accompanies an ongoing pilot randomized controlled trial investigating the feasibility of HIFST (completion: spring 2023). We are conducting semi-structured interviews and a short anonymous survey with participants who have completed HIFST. Data collected is being analyzed using qualitative content analysis. To date, results from 8 participants (2 men, 6 women, 55-81 years) demonstrate a positive overall impression of HIFST with all participants noting enjoyment, a good experience, and/or meeting their expectations. Participants reported certain aspects less/more enjoyable than others (e.g., specific exercises). No technical difficulties have been noted and many participants appreciated the convenience of an online format. Prior knowledge of interval-based exercise was minimal for most participants and the majority commented on a preference for shorter intervals with shorter rest periods. Further data collection and analysis will provide a contextualized understanding of the HIFST intervention and important considerations for exercise prescription in an aging population.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".