Frailty, Fitness, and Quality of Life Outcomes of a Healthy and Productive Aging Program (GrandMove) for Older Adults With Frailty or Prefrailty: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Exercise interventions can reverse frailty. However, their scalability and sustainability are limited by manpower, which is reducing due to population aging. GrandMove is a program that combines healthy and productive aging strategies to (1) train and employ robust older adults as exercise coaches and (2) improve fitness and motivate the adoption of an exercise habit in older adults with frailty and prefrailty. Objective: The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness of GrandMove in improving frailty, fitness, and quality of life in older adults with frailty and prefrailty. Methods: This cluster randomized controlled trial recruited older adults with frailty and prefrailty (N=390) living in the community. The 18-month exercise program consisted of three 6-month phases of lifestyle education (E), resistance exercise (R), and aerobic exercise (A). Each group of participants was randomized into 3 intervention sequence arms: the E-R-A group, the A-R-E group, and the R-A-E group. Results: At 6, 12, and 18 months, 346, 305, and 264 participants completed the frailty assessment, respectively. At 6 months, 100 of 346 participants (28.9%) were robust. A-R-E and R-A-E were no better than E-R-A as the active control in addressing frailty over the first 6 months (A-R-E: interaction coefficient 0.07, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.49, P=.68; R-A-E: interaction coefficient -0.02, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.38, P=.90). Compared to lifestyle education, resistance training and aerobic training over the first 6 months were associated with greater improvement in fitness measures of grip strength for the left hand (A-R-E: interaction coefficient 2.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 5.23, P=.009; R-A-E: interaction coefficient 2.21, 95% CI 0.63 to 4.36, P=.04) and right hand (A-R-E: interaction coefficient 3.75, 95% CI 1.54 to 5.97, P=.001; R-A-E: interaction coefficient 2.29, 95% CI 0.16 to 4.42, P=.04) and arm curl test (A-R-E: interaction coefficient 1.42, 95% CI 0.39 to 2.46, P=.007; R-A-E: interaction coefficient 1.11, 95% CI 0.12 to 2.11, P=.03). The sequence of exercise interventions (R-A-E vs A-R-E) did not make a difference in primary outcomes at 12 months, but the R-A-E group showed better quality of life (interaction coefficient 4.50, 95% CI 0.12 to 8.88, P=.008). Improved frailty outcomes were maintained by the end of the study, but the change in overall physical activity level was limited. Conclusions: Combining healthy and productive aging strategies is a scalable and sustainable way to improve frailty, fitness, and quality of life in older adults with frailty and prefrailty. Different combinations of lifestyle education and physical interventions improved frailty.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 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".