Differences in psychosocial determinants of physical activity in older adults participating in organised versus non-organised activities.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the introduction of the new consensus on 30 minutes of moderate physical activity preferably on all days of the week, exercise implemented into daily activities is promoted whereas structured activity programs lose importance. Activity levels of most older people don't come up with current recommendations. Therefore strategies to enhance attendance of older adults in physical activities should be developed. Group programs may be more effective in changing exercise behaviour of older adults than non-supervised physical activity. The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences in level of activity and psychosocial determinants of physical activity between seniors involved in an exercise class and seniors not engaged in any organised physical activity. METHODS: Seventy-five elderly who were currently involved in structured exercise classes and 75 elderly who did not participate in any organised physical activity during the previous year were recruited in senior citizens' centres and were asked to fill out a questionnaire. RESULTS: Subjects involved in an exercise program had higher levels of activity and reported more social influences and higher self-efficacy compared to the respondents practising on an individual basis. No differences were found in perceived barriers or benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Exercising in a group program gives the opportunity to accumulate some extra physical activity and positively affects the level of activity outside the program. Stimulating older adults to join a structured activity program in the company of family or friends in order to enhance supporting social influences and perceived competence could be an important intervention strategy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".