Findings from a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial of a music and dance programme for community dwelling older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Functional decline, chronic illness, reduced quality of life and increased healthcare utilisation are common in older adults. Evidence suggests music and dance can support healthy ageing in older adults. This study explored the feasibility, potential for effect and cost effectiveness of the Music and Movement for Health (MMH) programme among community-dwelling older adults using a pragmatic cluster-randomised, controlled feasibility trial design. METHODS: Community-dwelling adults aged 65 years or older were recruited to seven clusters in the Mid-West region of Ireland. Clusters were block randomised to either the MMH intervention or control. Primary feasibility outcomes included recruitment, retention, adherence, fidelity, and safety. Secondary outcomes measured physical activity, physical and cognitive performance, and psychosocial well-being, along with healthcare utilisation were assessed at baseline and after 12 weeks. RESULTS: The study successfully met feasibility targets, with recruitment (n = 100), retention (91 %), adherence (71 %), data completeness (92 %) and intervention fidelity (21 out of 24) all meeting predetermined criteria. Both groups exhibited an increase in self-reported physical activity and improved physical function. Participants in the intervention group scored consistently better in psychosocial measures compared to the control group at follow-up. The health economic analysis confirmed the feasibility of the methodology employed and points to the potential cost-effectiveness of the MMH relative to the control or no organised programme. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The MMH intervention and study design were found to be feasible and acceptable with important findings to inform future evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a definitive randomised controlled trial.
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 | 0.024 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".