Synchronous Group-Based Online Exercise Programs for Older Adults Living in the Community: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults are the least physically active group with specific barriers to regular exercise, and online exercise programs could overcome some of those barriers. This scoping review aimed to describe the characteristics of supervised group-based synchronous online exercise programs for older adults living in the community, their feasibility, acceptability, and potential benefits. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, SPORTDiscus, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature were searched until November 2022. The included studies met the following criteria: participants aged 50 years and above, a minimum of a 6-week group-based supervised and synchronous intervention, and original articles available in English. Eighteen articles were included, with 1,178 participants (67% female, average age of 71 [57-93] years), most (83%) published in the past 3 years. From the limited reported studies, delivering supervised, synchronous online exercise programs (one to three times/week, between 8 and 32 weeks) for older adults living in the community seems feasible, accepted, and can improve physical function.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".