A systematic review and meta-analysis on physical activity for the treatment of anxiety in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Symptoms of anxiety and anxiety disorders negatively impact the quality of life of older adults. Physical activity is a potentially accessible intervention with other health benefits and minimal risk, yet its impact on anxiety in older adults is unclear. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Included databases were MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO and CINHAL were searched from inception to June 23, 2023. PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS, MEASUREMENTS: We included randomized controlled trials of older adults who reported anxiety symptoms or disorders at baseline, that compared physical activity interventions with a non-physical activity comparator. All steps were done in duplicate, and certainty of evidence was with Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations. Random effects meta-analyses were performed. RESULTS: 10,763 citations were reviewed, 13 studies were included in meta-analyses. At baseline, participants self-reported low to moderate levels of anxiety and different levels of fitness. In the meta-analysis, the physical activity intervention had a medium effect in decreasing the severity of anxiety symptoms compared to the control (standardized mean differences (SMD) - 0.66; 95 % Confidence Interval (CI) - 0.89, - 0.43). Subgroup analyses indicated reductions in symptom severity when only assessing the effects of in-person interventions (SMD: - 0.59; 95 %CI: - 0.79, - 0.38), studies of participants without pre-existing diseases (SMD: - 0.74; 95 % CI: - 0.99, - 0.50), resistance training (SMD: - 0.76; 95 % CI: - 1.15, - 0.38) and aerobic exercise (SMD: - 0.82; 95 % CI: - 1.15, - 0.49). Studies had small sample sizes and high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Physical activity reduces symptoms of anxiety in older adults and is an acceptable and promising intervention to incorporate into care planning.
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 | 0.013 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".