Comparison of a fall prevention exercise program offered online and in-person for older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In some cases, older adults have limited access to community programs to reduce the risk of falls. Online delivery increases accessibility, but their effectiveness is unknown. Purpose: To compare an online and in-person delivery exercise program offered to older adults aiming to reduce risk of falls. Methods: The Zoomers on the Go program is a peer-led exercise program offered for 12 weeks, two times per week to adults age 50+. The program includes resistance exercise, balance, and flexibility. The in-person group completed the intervention in 2017-2018, while the online group did the intervention in 2020-2021. The primary outcomes were lower body strength (30-second chair stand), and the one leg stance balance (seconds). Results: A total of 100 participants (66.4 ± 7.4 years old) in the online group and 95 participants in the in-person group (67.1± 7.0 years old) attended 17.2 ± 5.9 and 16.2 ± 5.4 sessions (p=0.3). Participants in the in-person and online groups improved lower body strength (pre 14.4 ± 2.8, post 17.0 ± 4.16; p< 0.05 vs. pre 14.1 ± 4.3 post 17.5 ±5.08; p<0.05) without any difference between groups (p=0.08). While balance was significantly improved in the in-person group (pre 27.2 ± 14.7 post 32.4 ± 14.6; p <0.01) and not in the online group pre (36.5 ± 13.7 post 38.0 ± 12.5; p<0.03) the difference between the group was not significant. Conclusions: Online exercise program delivery improves physical function in older adults; however, their functional benefits appear to be similar to in-person delivery. Funding: Healthy Seniors Pilot Project- Public Health Agency of Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".