Community Group-Based Physical Activity Programs for Immigrant Older Adults: A Systematic Realist Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Physical activity program interventions often lack sensitivity to the needs of older immigrant adults. The objective of this systematic realist review is to explain how, why, for whom, and under which circumstances community group-based physical activity programs work for immigrant older adults. The initial program theory was developed using prior research, team expertise, social cognitive theory, and knowledge user consultations. The program theory was tested and refined via a systematic review of the literature. Database searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Sports Medicine and Education Index, and SPORTDiscus. A total of 22 sources of evidence met inclusion criteria and included intervention studies, systematic reviews, and a discussion paper. Intervention studies were appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The final program theory constituted eight context-mechanism-outcome configurations that highlight the importance of facilitator characteristics, access to safe spaces, group dynamics, and social support. A limitation was the small number and variable quality of included evidence. Physical activity programs that target immigrant older adults must strengthen physical and psychological safety and maximize opportunities for role modeling and socialization. This research was supported by the Alberta Health Services Seniors Health Strategic Clinical Network and is registered in PROSPERO (ID#258179).
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 | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".