‘Excellent for mind, body and spirit’: Participant, facilitator, and community stakeholder experiences of Music and Movement for Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Arts-based interventions are an emerging area of interest in health research for older adults. Music and Movement for Health (MMH) is one such systematically developed interdisciplinary arts-based intervention designed to enhance health and wellbeing of older adults. The objective of this qualitative study was to explore the opinions and experiences of participants, facilitators, and community stakeholders of the MMH intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This embedded qualitative study was completed as part of a wider evaluation of the MMH intervention. A purposive sample of older adults who had completed MMH (n = 71), facilitators (n = 8) and community stakeholders (n = 4) participated in this study. Data were collected through a combination of focus groups and telephone/virtual interviews. Data were analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Data analysis led to the generation of the overarching theme 'Positive ageing in place', which encompassed two themes: (1) 'Intersection of exercise and arts' and (2) 'Fostering a sense of belonging', and five subthemes. MMH was viewed as a unique arts-based intervention that combined participants' interest in music and dance and had many perceived physical and psychological benefits. Additionally, MMH provided routine and social opportunities to older adults, which were particularly valued in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: The provision of exercise through the arts was enjoyable and, resultantly, desirable to many older adults, with perceived positive physical and psychosocial outcomes. Consequently, the use of arts-based interventions for health promotion and social opportunities among older adults warrants further investigation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN35313497.
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 | 0.019 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".