Losing Ground Following Community Exercise Programme Closures: A Qualitative Descriptive Study of the Impact of COVID-19 Related Pandemic Restrictions on Exercise Participation, Physical Activity, and Health of Older Adults With Balance and Mobility Limitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To understand the impact of COVID-19-related closures of community-based exercise programmes (CBEPs) on exercise participation, physical activity, and health of older adults with balance and mobility limitations; facilitators, and barriers to exercise and physical activity; and preferred support from recreation centres and health care providers. Method: This qualitative descriptive study involved semi-structured interviews with seven older adults (aged 50-76 years) with balance and mobility limitations, enrolled in CBEPs at a recreation centre in a suburban area in Canada prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted a thematic analysis. Results: One major theme, losing ground in the absence of structured exercise, was identified. Despite engaging in alternative at-home or outdoor activities, participants perceived a worsening of their balance and mobility, dissatisfaction with the extent of exercises and physical activity, and loss of social connectedness. Participants desired structured, individualized exercise resources, and frequent check-ins from exercise instructors to stay physically active during programme suspension. Conclusions: Following CBEP closures, older adults with balance and mobility limitations from a single recreation centre perceived declines in physical and mental health, exercise participation and social interaction, and desired personalized exercises and communication from exercise instructors. The small sample size may have limited achievement of saturation.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".