“Now I Am Walking Toward Health”: A Qualitative Study About the Outcomes of Physical Activity Participation That Matter to Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials that deliver physical activity interventions have demonstrated benefits for older adults across numerous health outcomes. However, too little attention has been directed to ensuring that such trials are measuring patient-relevant outcomes. To support outcome selection for future trials, the objective of this study was to understand what outcomes related to their physical activity participation older adults find important. METHODS: We conducted 12 semistructured interviews with adults aged 65 years and older and analyzed interview transcripts with a reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Older adults desired diverse outcomes from their physical activity participation, ranging from generic (e.g., quality of life) to specific (e.g., leg strength). Relevant outcomes were classified under five themes: physical, clinical, social, psychological, and overarching, each with respective subthemes. CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes that older adults found important were plentiful and rooted in a desire to improve their quality of life. Some of the outcome themes have been reported frequently in past trials (e.g., physical), but others have not (e.g., social). Future researchers should be aware of, and responsive to, the priorities of older adults when designing trials and defining outcomes. Significance/Implications: This study will help to improve outcome selection for future trials of physical activity with older adults. In alignment with a patient-oriented research philosophy, this study will also ground future outcome selection in the priorities of older adults.
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 | 0.035 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".