Feasibility and acceptability of an unsupervised and adapted physical activity program (PACE tool) as pragmatic care in a geriatric outpatient clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity accelerates the ageing process, leading functional incapacities and physical dependence. Although physical activity (PA) is known to counteract these effects, its integration as a prescription in healthcare is uncommon due to the lack of pragmatic solutions. AIMS: This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of implementing a pragmatic, unsupervised and adapted PA program in geriatric outpatient clinics. METHODS: In a 4-month pilot study, a 12-week adapted unsupervised PA program was prescribed using the Promote the Autonomy through exerCisE (PACE) tool. Feasibility was assessed by measuring patient inclusion, program adherence, healthcare professional workload and the tool usability score. Acceptability (Likert scale) was assessed through healthcare professional and patient satisfaction, as well as reported pain, falls and feelings of safety during program practice. Pre- and post-intervention tests were conducted to explore adaptations in physical performance adaptations. RESULTS: Out of the 250 eligible patients, 76 were included, with 67 consenting to the prescribed PA intervention. Ultimately, 37 participants completed the full 12-week program, averaging 3.3 weekly sessions. Notably, 70.2% adhered to the daily walking prescription. Physicians found the PACE tool 'highly relevant' and non-disruptive. Beliefs in PA benefits and kinesiologist support facilitated adoption, whilst existing pain and lack of motivation hindered adoption. No meaningful change in functional performance was noted post-intervention. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that implementing PACE as a prescription exercise care regimen is feasible and acceptable to both healthcare professionals and patients. However, further randomised controlled trials are needed to evaluate its health effects compared to usual care.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".