Usability of Videoconferencing for Physical Exercise Interventions in Older Adults: A Scoping Review (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Videoconference combines the convenience of home physical exercise (PE) with group interaction and supervision of exercise in the community and could be useful for facilitating PE practice among older adults OBJECTIVE This scoping review aims to access evidence on the usability of videoconferencing technologies as a medium for PE interventions delivered synchronously to healthy older adults. METHODS Electronic searches on databases (Pubmed/Ovid Medline, Science Direct, Scopus, CINHAL) until December 2023 for identifying articles on measures of usability (i.e.: effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of technology). RESULTS Thirteen studies out of 1846 unique records were included. Retrieved results showed that videoconferencing strategies can be used to deliver synchronous exercise interventions. However, their effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction are variable depending on the technological medium used. Despite widespread use among older individuals, few studies evaluate usability, highlighting a gap in evaluation methods for PE remote intervention. CONCLUSIONS The review suggests that while older adults can use technology to deliver synchronous interventions, further research with standardized tools is crucial to ensure their active engagement in physical exercise. Evaluating the usability of the technologies used for these programs can help tailor them to the needs and characteristics of older adults. Our findings also underscore the importance of continuing research to assess the effectiveness and acceptability of videoconferencing technologies within the context of exercise interventions. Ongoing research is essential to guide the development of customized solutions and optimize the efficacy of interventions for this population.
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 | 0.027 | 0.122 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".