The OASIS walking study—Older adults with cognitive impairment performing sit to stands and walking in transitional care programs: Protocol for a feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults with cognitive impairment often experience low mobility and functional decline in hospital, transfer to facility-based transitional care programs, and have poorer outcomes compared to those without cognitive impairment. This protocol paper describes a study which aims to determine the feasibility of, satisfaction with, and efficacy of a nurse-led mobility intervention (OASIS Walking Intervention) for older adults with cognitive impairment in facility-based transitional care programs in Ontario, Canada. A quasi-experimental one-group time series feasibility study will be conducted. A sample size of 26 participants will be recruited from two transitional care programs in Ontario, Canada. Participants will receive the OASIS Walking Intervention for up to 45 minutes per session, 5 sessions per week, for 6 weeks. The intervention consists of: 1) a patient-centered communication care plan; 2) sit to stand activity; and 3) a walking program. Feasibility will be determined by: a) recruitment rate; b) retention rate; and c) adherence. Efficacy of the intervention will be determined by the change over time in older adults' lower extremity muscle strength, mobility, and functional status and by their discharge destination (home vs. nursing home). Satisfaction will be measured using the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire. Efficacy outcomes will be measured before the start of the intervention, after 3 weeks of the intervention, and immediately after 6-week intervention. Descriptive statistics will be used for measures of feasibility, satisfaction, and discharge destination. Repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA) will be used to analyze efficacy. Ethics approval has been received for this study. Findings from the study will be used to refine the intervention for use in a definitive pilot trial. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, international conferences, through group presentations at the study sites, and through the study site networks. Trial registration: The trial has been registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT06150339).
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 | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.007 |
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".