Walking and Social Reminiscence in Gentrifying Neighborhoods: Feasibility and Impact on Cognitive, Physical, and Mental Health Among Older Black Adults in the SHARP Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Two exploratory 6-month pilots of triadic walking with culturally celebratory social reminiscence in gentrifying neighborhoods tested feasibility and health impact among normal and mildly cognitively impaired (MCI) older Black adults. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Fourteen triads walked 1-mile 3×/week, using a navigational application with image-based reminiscence prompts. Focus groups evaluated perceived health impact and experience. Primary outcome measures were program evaluations (feasibility), pre-post self-report health, Montreal Cognitive Assessment, blood pressure, and weight. Analysis used mean rank scores for program evaluations, pre-post paired t-tests for health outcomes, and thematic coding for 30 focus groups. RESULTS: Feasibility: Retention was 74% and 86% for pilots, and 100% and 92%, respectively, were "extremely likely" to recommend to friends/family. Mean rank scores indicated appropriate pace and dose, effective conversational prompts, and program readiness with minor changes. Health impact: Self-rated health, mood, activity levels, and energy improved, days feeling downhearted decreased, and days feeling calm/peaceful were maintained or improved. Among Cohort 2, cognitive assessment scores were maintained or improved for 67%; for MCI, 76% had mean improvement of 2.4 (p = .045). Blood pressure and weight decreased for 78% and 44%, respectively. Focus groups: Perceived impact of triadic walking included increased physical and social activity outside the program, increased awareness of cognitive decline risk and personal agency, and deep-seated sense of community connection. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Triadic walking provides structure, accountability, connection, and purpose, motivating sustained engagement. Walking programs that center socialization, particularly within culturally meaningful contexts, may be more effective among older Black adults. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05906654; NCT05906667.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".