MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407296541 · doi:10.24095/hpcdp.45.2.01

Using the Staircase Approach to increase movement: a systematic search and review to inform a novel sedentary behaviour intervention for older adults

2025· review· en· W4407296541 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Konstantina Katsoulis, Maria Tan, Sean Horton, Samir K. Sinha, Bill Kapralos, David W. Dunstan, Danielle R. B̀ouchard, Jennifer L. Copeland, Shilpa Dogra

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in Canada · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhysical Activity and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of LethbridgeUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan UniversityUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of WindsorOntario Tech University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOPsychological interventionMedicineScopusSystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)MEDLINEPhysical therapyGerontologyNursingSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Traditional approaches to supporting older adults in adopting and maintaining an active lifestyle have largely failed. The previously proposed "Staircase Approach" offers a new foundation for developing interventions and public health strategies; this approach includes Step 1 (changing sedentary behaviour) and Steps 2 to 4 (incorporating more physical activity of increasing levels of intensity). In this systematic search and review, we aimed to inform the co-creation of a novel Staircase Approach intervention for community-dwelling, inactive older adults, primarily focussed on Step 1. METHODS: A systematic search was performed across six databases (MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, SPORTDiscus and Scopus). RESULTS: After duplicates were removed, 3427 titles and abstracts were screened. Fourteen articles (including 17 intervention groups) were included after full-text review. Five were randomized controlled trials, three compared two interventions and six were single-arm studies. Sample sizes ranged from 9 to 176 participants, and included 617 older adults at baseline. Mean age of samples ranged from 64.3 (standard deviation [SD] 3.8) to 85.1 (SD 6.2) years, while the intervention length ranged from less than one day to 6 months. Sedentary time interventions are well accepted; most studies had completion rates above 80%. Based on findings from within-group comparisons, half of the studies showed a reduction in sedentary time (6/12 groups) and half showed an increase in physical activity (6/12 groups). Based on findings from between-group comparisons, 2 out of 5 intervention groups showed improvements in sitting time and physical activity outcomes compared to controls. Satisfaction and adherence to interventions were generally high. CONCLUSION: Sedentary time interventions for older adults show promise and point to several components that may be included in an intervention focussed on Step 1 of the Staircase Approach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.106
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion and Chronic Disease Prevention in CanadaSame topicPhysical Activity and HealthFrench-language works237,207