Comparison between the effects of guided and free museum visits on the physical demands and well-being of sedentary individuals over 50: an observational comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cultural activities can be a valuable means of supporting individuals who are not receptive to physical activities. The objective was to assess the number of steps taken during the guided or free visits among sedentary individuals and compare physical capacities and well-being before and after visits for the entire group and between middle-aged and older age subgroups.Methods The observational study included 80 sedentary participants over 50 years old. Of those, 40 participated in a guided visit and 40 visited the museum freely (one session 60–75 minutes) to the Ariana and Museum of Art and History in Geneva. Before the visit, balance, gait speed, quadriceps strength, fatigue, stress, pain, and well-being were assessed. During the visit, the participants had an activity tracker to measure the step numbers. In the end, all tests were repeated and satisfaction was assessed. Depending on the normality of the data, a parametric or nonparametric test was conducted for intergroup and intragroup comparisons.Results Participants took 889 ± 381 steps during the free visit and 819 ± 244 steps during the guided visit (p = 0.195). Balance and gait speed in dual-task activities (free visit), stress, fatigue, and well-being showed improvement after the visits (p < 0.050). For older individuals (≥ 65 years), the guided visit led to more favorable well-being outcomes, whereas in younger individuals (< 65 years), the free visit led to increased physical demands.Conclusion Both visit modalities exceed the threshold of 775 steps. A museum visit is a relevant intervention to physically stimulate sedentary individuals and improve their well-being.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".