The impact of outdoor walking interventions on frailty among older adults with mobility limitations: findings from the Getting Older Adults Outdoors (GO-OUT) study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective Diverse strategies are needed to reduce frailty. This study evaluated the effects of two behavioural interventions targeting outdoor walking on reducing the level of frailty among community-dwelling older adults with mobility limitations. Methods Data from two participant cohorts of the Getting Older Adults Outdoors (GO-OUT) study were analyzed. After baseline evaluations, 190 participants were invited to a one-day educational workshop and were then randomized to either a 10-week supervised outdoor walk group (n=98) or a 10-week telephone weekly reminders group (n=92). We assessed frailty using Fried’s frailty index at 0, 3, and 5.5 months. Mixed-effects linear and ordinal regression models were used to evaluate change in frailty score and phenotype over time after accounting for age, sex, study site, participation on own or with a partner, and cohort. Results At baseline, participant mean age was 74.5 ± 7.1 years; 73% were female, 7% were frail, and 59% were pre-frail. Total frailty scores decreased, on average, by 0.13 points ( b = – 0.13, 95% CI: –0.26 to –0.01; p =.036) across all participants from 0 to 3 months (immediately post-intervention). Participants were 55% less likely to progress to more severe frailty phenotypes at 3 months compared to baseline (OR=0.45; 95% CI: 0.25 to 0.81; p =.008). No significant between-group differences or long-term effects were observed. Conclusions A short-term reduction in frailty was observed in older adults with mobility limitations following participation in behavioural interventions aimed at improving outdoor walking; neither intervention was superior. Supervised outdoor walk group and telephone weekly reminder interventions to increase outdoor walking may have the potential to mitigate frailty in older adults with mobility limitations.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".