A park-based group mobility program for older adults with difficulty walking outdoors: a qualitative process evaluation of the Getting Older Adults Outdoors (GO-OUT) randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Getting Older Adults Outdoors (GO-OUT) randomized controlled trial showed that a workshop and 10-week park-based outdoor walk group (OWG) was superior to the workshop and 10 weekly reminders (WR) with increasing walking capacity, but not outdoor walking activity, health-promoting behavior, or successful aging, among older adults with difficulty walking outdoors. The objective of this planned process evaluation was to explore participants’ perceptions of mechanisms of impact of and contextual factors influencing experiences with the interventions to help explain the observed intervention effects on study outcomes. Methods A qualitative descriptive study involving semi-structured interviews conducted at 6-months post-baseline was conducted. A directed content analysis was undertaken. Participants We interviewed 27 adults (52% male, 48% female, mean age 76 years) from the OWG (n = 13) and WR group (n = 14). Results We identified two themes including: “Holding Me Accountable to Walk More Frequently”, and “We Walked Farther, With More Ease and Confidence, and We Felt Better”. Participants in both groups described how the OWG and WR programs provided some degree of structure and accountability to others that increased their motivation to walk outdoors. Participants described how the OWG led to improved walking capacity (e.g., increased walking distance) and confidence. Interacting with people during OWG sessions led to a sense of enjoyment, and well-being. Conclusions Community programs that incorporate structure, accountability, and opportunities for social interaction, can help improve motivation to increase outdoor walking activity and a sense of belonging for older adults with difficulty walking outdoors. Park-based OWG programs appear to convey additional important benefits related to improved physical function and well-being. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03292510 Date of registration: September 25, 2017.
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 | 0.051 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".