Feasibility, safety, and potential benefit of a virtual, community-based, task-oriented exercise program (TIME <sup>TM</sup> at Home) for people with balance and mobility limitations: a pre-post feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: at Home) among people with balance and mobility limitations, and explore program experiences of participants, caregivers, and program providers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a pre-post study with a qualitative component, community-dwelling adults with balance and mobility limitations completed a virtual 8-week video-based exercise program (2 classes/week, 10 people/class) with 2 live facilitators, a post-class social time, and 3 healthcare partner visits. We administered physical and mental health measures pre- and post-program, and an online questionnaire regarding program acceptability mid- and post-program, and interviewed 10 participants, 7 caregivers, and 6 program providers post-program. RESULTS: A priori benchmarks were achieved for feasibility (e.g., 80% of classes attended) and safety (no serious adverse events). In 17 participants with pre and post data (median age 73 years, 53% post-stroke), significant improvement on measures of leg strength, balance self-efficacy, mood, mobility, everyday functioning, and health status (but not caregiver mood), was observed. Qualitative analysis identified two themes: the program is safe, beneficial, and enjoyable; and implementation considerations. CONCLUSION: at Home appears feasible, safe, and beneficial to physical and mental health in adults with balance and mobility limitations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT05369741. Registered May 11, 2022 - retrospectively registered.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".