Examining dose-response of an outdoor walk group program in the Getting Older Adults Outdoors (GO-OUT) trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Getting Older Adults Outdoors (GO-OUT) randomized trial showed that a 10-week outdoor walk group (OWG) program was not superior to 10 weekly phone reminders in increasing physical and mental health; however, OWG attendance varied. This study examined whether dose-response relationships existed between OWG attendance and improvement in physical and mental health among older adults with mobility limitations. METHODS: We analyzed data from 76 OWG participants with pre- and post-intervention scores on at least one of seven measures of health outcomes (walking endurance, comfortable and fast walking speed, balance, lower extremity strength, walking self-efficacy, and emotional well-being). Participants were classified as attending 0-9, 10-15, and 16-20 OWG sessions based on attendance tertiles. We adjusted for participant sex and study site in regression analyses. RESULTS: Among the 76 participants, mean age was 74.9 ± 6.6 years and 72% were female. Compared to those attending 0-9 OWG sessions, participants attending 16-20 sessions exhibited a 56.3-meter greater improvement in walking endurance (95% CI: 17.3, 95.4, p = 0.005); 0.15-meter/second greater improvement in comfortable walking speed (95% CI: 0.01, 0.29, p = 0.034); and 0.18-meter/second greater improvement in fast walking speed (95% CI: 0.03, 0.34, p = 0.020). Higher attendance was associated with greater odds of improvement in comfortable walking speed (OR = 7.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 57.8, p = 0.047) and fast walking speed (OR = 10.1, 95% CI: 1.8, 72.0, p = 0.014). No significant dose-response relationships for the remaining outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Higher attendance in a park-based, supervised, task-oriented and progressive OWG program is associated with greater improvement in walking endurance and walking speed among older adults with mobility limitations. Attendance likely impacted walking capacity and not balance, lower extremity strength, walking self-efficacy or emotional well-being due to task-specificity of training. This study highlights the importance of attendance when designing and implementing OWG programs to enhance walking endurance and speed 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".