MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416965593 · doi:10.2196/87577

Supervised and Self-Directed Technology-Based Dual-Task Exercise Training Program for Older Adults With a History of Falls: Mixed Methods Feasibility Study

2025· article· en· W4416965593 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Afroditi Stathi, Victoria A. Goodyear, Taylor Krauss, Helen Thomas, Angela Cooper, Philip Kinghorn, Caroline Miller, Natalie Ives, Magdalena Chechlacz, Daisy Wilson, Laura Magill, Shin‐Yi Chiou

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Aging · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicBalance, Gait, and Falls Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupCognitionCognitive trainingQualitative propertyFall preventionHealth carePrimary careQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Older adults who have fallen are at increased risk of future falls. Training cognitive and physical functions simultaneously, known as dual-task (DT) training, has been shown to improve mobility and reduce fall risks. With appropriate digital tools, such as smartphones and mobile applications (apps), it is possible to deliver DT training in unsupervised, home-based settings, thereby increasing accessibility beyond the clinical environment. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> This study evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of a technology-based DT training programme delivered through a blended model of supervised and self-directed sessions in older adults with a history of falls. Perspectives of healthcare professionals working in falls prevention services were also explored. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> A single-arm, non-randomised feasibility study was conducted with 45 community-dwelling adults aged ≥65 years with a history of falls. Participants were recruited through primary care practices, secondary care falls prevention services, and community outreach. The 24-week DT programme, which integrated balance and strength exercises with cognitive training using a mobile app, was delivered in two phases: (1) Phase 1 (12 weeks): weekly 50-minute physiotherapist-led group classes in the community, and two additional 50-minute self-directed sessions at home; and (2) Phase 2 (12 weeks): three weekly 50-minute self-directed sessions at home. Feasibility and acceptability were assessed through recruitment and retention rates, adherence, app usage, and self-reported satisfaction. Qualitative data were obtained from focus groups with 28 participants who completed the programme and 16 healthcare professionals. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and qualitative data thematically. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> We recruited 45 of the target 50 participants with most participants (n = 41) recruited through community pathways; 4 were recruited via National Health Service (NHS) pathways. Adherence was 64%, with higher adherence during Phase 1 (81%) than Phase 2 (50%). App usage was high (95%), and self-reported programme satisfaction was moderate-to-high. Retention at 24 weeks was 76%, and no adverse events occurred. Qualitative findings supported the programme’s feasibility and acceptability, emphasising social connection and tailored exercises as key to adherence—especially in home-based sessions. Healthcare professionals identified community organisations and referral pathways as the most practical routes for implementation. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> A blended, technology-based dual-task training programme is both feasible and acceptable for older adults at risk of falling and can be effectively delivered beyond clinical settings. Community-based recruitment outperformed NHS pathways, highlighting the value of community engagement. These findings support the feasibility and acceptability of a full-scale trial, with targeted refinements to recruitment, support structures and delivery to maximise scalability and impact. </sec> <sec> <title>CLINICALTRIAL</title> ISRCTN15123197 </sec> <sec> <title>INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT</title> RR2-10.1371/journal.pone.0314829 </sec>

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.369 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR AgingSame topicBalance, Gait, and Falls PreventionFrench-language works237,207