EXPLORING THE IMPACT OF ATTENDANCE IN AN OUTDOOR WALKING PROGRAM ON HEALTH IN OLDER ADULTS WITH MOBILITY LIMITATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Walking in an outdoor environment offers numerous health benefits for older adults with mobility limitations. Effects may vary, however, depending on the level of attendance. This study aimed to investigate whether a dose-response relationship existed between attendance in an outdoor walk group (OWG) program and improvement in health outcomes among older adults with mobility limitations. We analyzed data from a randomized controlled trial conducted across four cities in Canada and focused specifically on community-dwelling older adults assigned to a 10-week OWG program (n=79, age=74.7±6.6 years, 72% female). Participants were categorized into three groups based on attendance tertiles, with the first, second, and third tertiles corresponding to attending 0–9, 10–15, and 16–20 outdoor walking sessions in total. Outcomes were operationalized as change in scores on measures of walking endurance, comfortable and fast gait speed, balance, lower extremity strength, walking self-confidence, and emotional well-being pre- to post-intervention. Results from multiple linear regression models showed that, compared to those who attended 0–9 OWG sessions, participants who attended 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 gait speed (95% CI:0.00, 0.29); and 0.17-meter/second greater improvement in fast gait speed (95% CI:0.02, 0.33), after adjusting for sex and study site. No significant dose-response relationships for balance, lower extremity strength, walking self-confidence, and emotional well-being were observed. The role of attendance highlighted in this study provides critical information relevant to the design and implementation of outdoor walking interventions aimed at improving health among older adults.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".