MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4410764850 · doi:10.2196/65489

Feasibility and Cultural Adaptation of a Community-Engaged Physical Activity Intervention for Hispanic Older Adults: Pilot Study

2025· article· en· W4410764850 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zvinka Z. Zlatar, Mikael Anne Greenwood-Hickman, Lazaro N Martinez Lujan, Julie J. Cooper, Stefani Flórez-Acevedo, David X. Márquez, Rosa Gutierrez Aceves, Dori E. Rosenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on AgingNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsPsychological interventionFocus groupIntervention (counseling)MedicineGerontologyPopulationRandomized controlled trialCommunity-based participatory researchHealth promotionDementiaPsychologyNursingParticipatory action researchPublic healthDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The adult Hispanic population of the United States faces an increased risk of dementia compared to non-Hispanic White adults. Physical activity (PA) can help reduce dementia risk, but culturally adapted interventions for Hispanic populations are lacking. Culturally adapted interventions are needed to increase uptake and adherence to brain health promotion strategies in the Hispanic community. Objective: The De Pie y a Movernos intervention aims to reduce barriers to participation in clinical research by culturally adapting a remotely based PA intervention for middle-aged and older Hispanic adults and establish its feasibility and acceptability through a pre-post pilot study. Findings from the cultural adaptation process will inform a stage II PA randomized controlled trial. Methods: The adaptation process followed Barrera and Castro's 2006 cultural adaptation framework and included a literature review, translation of intervention materials, review by a Hispanic-comprised community advisory board and bilingual staff, and a pre-post pilot study (N=10) with subsequent focus groups to refine the intervention. The pilot intervention included the use of Fitbit activity trackers and 2 individualized goal-setting calls with a health coach over a period of 3 weeks. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed using both quantitative methods and qualitative focus groups. Primary quantitative outcomes included enrollment, recruitment, and completion rates, as well as acceptability (predetermined satisfaction survey scores ≥3). Focus groups were thematically coded to identify themes for participants' opinions about several aspects of the intervention and explore key barriers and facilitators to PA engagement to improve the planned stage II trial. Results: Ten Hispanic adults (age: mean 62.7, SD 5.3 years; education: mean 11.8, SD 3.8 years; n=9, 90% female; n=9, 90% Spanish-speaking) participated in the pre-post pilot, with a 100% completion rate, 50% enrollment rate, and a recruitment rate of 5 participants per month. Acceptability was high (mean score 4.6, SD 0.3; range 1-5). Qualitative analyses indicated that participants had high satisfaction with the intervention. They expressed a preference for adding group-based activities and increased interaction with study staff. Key barriers to PA included lack of awareness about the benefits of PA, low self-efficacy, time constraints, health conditions, and weather, while facilitators included awareness of PA's cognitive benefits, social support from family or friends, accountability, enjoyable activities, self-efficacy, and Fitbit use. Insights from participants and community advisory board recommendations led to modifications for the larger trial, such as incorporating group-based elements for those who want them and adding an option for teleconference coaching calls. Conclusions: The cultural adaptation process was essential in refining the intervention to align with the preferences of older Hispanic adults, which resulted in a feasible and acceptable intervention. Findings will inform a planned stage II randomized controlled trial aimed at promoting PA and reducing dementia risk in older Hispanic 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.747
GPT teacher head0.723
Teacher spread0.025 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative Research→Same topicHealth Policy Implementation Science→French-language works237,207→