Inactivity is isolation: insights from a sedentary time intervention in assisted living
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As Canada's aging population continues to grow, a larger number of older adults will be residing in assisted living (residences with some on-site care and services). Research is needed to understand how to support active aging - defined as a combination of movement and social behaviours-in this unique living environment. In this study, we explored insights generated about active aging from older residents of assisted living who participated in an intervention designed to encourage standing breaks. METHODS: This was a multi-method exploratory study. Residents of three assisted living facilities participated in a 12-week intervention called Stand When You Can. The Keele Assessment of Participation (KAP) was used to assess perceived levels of participation in various domains of assisted living at pre- and post-intervention. Focus group sessions were conducted to explore insights on active aging. Transcripts were thematically analyzed to generate themes and sub-themes. RESULTS: A total of 18 residents (84.4 ± 6.8 years, 72% female), participated in the focus groups. KAP scores at pre-intervention were indicative of a high level of social participation within the residences. Five primary themes emerged from the focus group sessions: 1) intervention effectiveness, 2) physical and social engagement go hand in hand, 3) the congregate living environment can influence movement behaviour, 4) congregate living supports interpersonal relationships, and 5) personal preferences for solitary activity. CONCLUSIONS: The natural communal setting of assisted living, along with supportive staff, presents a valuable opportunity to promote active aging, which is a complex interplay of social and movement behaviour. Our preliminary findings suggest that in addition to supporting individual behaviour change, a comprehensive approach that addresses the environment, social engagement, and staff engagement is needed in this setting. Future interventions should consider addressing each of these components to facilitate successful behaviour change related to active aging.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".