Implementation and Acceptability of a Rural Active Living Initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health promotion initiatives developed at the community level provide physical and social benefits for older adults. This study examined the implementation and acceptability of an active living program developed for older adults living independently in seniors’ housing apartments in two rural communities (population 650 and 1,500). Using a qualitative descriptive study design, one focus group and seven interviews were completed between December 2023 and February 2024. Focus group participants included managers/directors responsible for developing or supporting the initiative. Interview participants included home care continuing care assistants who delivered the initiative and older adults who participated in the sessions (average age 87 years). Using a six-phase reflexive thematic analysis approach, five themes were developed related to implementation and acceptability: Mind the Gap, the Program that Brings us Together, Everyone Gets a Seat at the Table, When Staff Step Up to the Plate, and the Future is Unclear. Findings suggest the initiative promoted physical activity, mental well-being, and socialization among participants. By exploring the experiences of managers/directors, staff, and participants involved in a rural active living initiative, this study emphasized the importance of considering multiple perspectives when evaluating community health promotion supports for 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 | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".