Examining the impact of outdoor walk group attendance on health among older adults with mobility limitations in the Getting Older Adults Outdoors (GO-OUT) randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The Getting Older Adults Outdoors randomized trial showed a 10-week outdoor walk group (OWG) program was not superior to 10 weekly phone reminders on increasing physical and mental health; however, OWG attendance varied. This study examined whether a dose-response relationship existed between OWG attendance and improvement in physical and mental health among older adults with mobility limitations. Methods We analyzed data from 98 older adults randomized to a 10-week park-based OWG program. Participants were classified as attending 0–9, 10–15, and 16–20 OWG sessions based on attendance tertiles. Outcomes included change in scores on measures of walking endurance, comfortable and fast walking speed, balance, lower extremity strength, walking self-efficacy, and emotional well-being pre- to post-intervention. Results Seventy-nine older adults with complete information on the seven health outcomes were included (age=74.7±6.6 years, 72% female). Compared to those who attended 0–9 OWG sessions, participants attending 16–20 sessions exhibited a 52.7-meter greater improvement in walking endurance (95% CI:12.3, 93.1); 0.15-meter/second greater improvement in comfortable walking speed (95% CI:0.00, 0.29); and 0.17-meter/second greater improvement in fast walking speed (95% CI:0.02, 0.33). Higher attendance was also associated with higher odds of experiencing an improvement in walking self-efficacy (OR=4.03; 95% CI:1.05, 16.85) and fast walking speed (OR=9.00, 95% CI:1.59, 61.73). No significant dose-response relationships for balance, lower extremity strength, and emotional well-being were observed. Conclusions Higher attendance in outdoor walking interventions is associated with greater improvements in walking endurance, walking speed, and walking self-efficacy among older adults with mobility limitations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".