MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416744831 · doi:10.1186/s40814-025-01725-2

Feasibility and preliminary functional, physical, and psychosocial effects of high-intensity functional training for adults with mobility disabilities

2025· article· en· W4416744831 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lyndsie Koon, Joseph E. Donnelly, Richard A. Washburn, Joseph R. Sherman, Magdelyn M. Kroeger, Rebecca E. Swinburne Romine, Reed Handlery, Kaci Handlery

Bibliographic record

VenuePilot and Feasibility Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialTraining (meteorology)Activities of daily livingFunctional trainingQuality of life (healthcare)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This study evaluated the feasibility and initial health effects on functional, physical, and psychosocial outcomes of a community-based, 12-week high-intensity functional training (HIFT) intervention for adults with mobility disabilities. DESIGN AND SAMPLE: A single-group, pre-post design with assessments at baseline and post-intervention. Twelve participants (75% female; 37-74 years) with mobility disabilities. INTERVENTION: Twelve-week, thrice-weekly community-based HIFT program. MEASURES: Feasibility was assessed via recruitment, retention, and adherence. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) evaluated self-report physical function, while physical health outcomes comprised fitness, strength, flexibility, and weight-related assessments. Psychosocial measures included quality of life (QOL), self-efficacy, and perceived barriers. Energy expenditure via portable indirect calorimetry and exit interviews captured participant experiences. ANALYSIS: Feasibility was reported as percentages; descriptive statistics and effect sizes were calculated for functional, physical, and psychosocial outcomes. Thematic analysis identified themes from transcriptions. RESULTS: Recruitment was 51%, retention was 83%, and attendance was 77.5%, with one adverse event. Cohen's d effect sizes indicated improvements in function (d = 0.93-1.04), fitness (d = 0.65-1.59), flexibility (d = 0.36-0.64), BMI (d = 0.32), QOL (d = 1.04), self-efficacy (d = 1.03), and barriers to health behavior (d = 0.48). Participants reported high satisfaction and community support following the intervention. Energy expenditure averaged 154.65 (65.5) kcals/session and 86.13 (42) kcals during exercise. CONCLUSION: A community-based HIFT program for individuals with mobility disabilities is feasible; however, the small sample size limits the ability to attribute changes to the intervention. CLINICALTRIALS: GOV: HIFT for People with Mobility-Related Disabilities (Research GO); NCT05516030.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.746

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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 venuePilot and Feasibility StudiesSame topicCerebral Palsy and Movement DisordersFrench-language works237,207