Exploring The Implementation Of Physical Activity Interventions In Long-Term Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Canada’s population is aging and with it so is the demand for long-term care (LTC). Older persons living in LTC facilities can benefit from increasing their levels of physical activity however the majority of older residents spend most of their time engaged in sedentary activities and are inactive. Objective: The overarching purpose of this dissertation is to examine the implementation of physical activity interventions in LTC settings. Methods: To achieve this objective, a three-manuscript style dissertation was undertaken. Study One involved a scoping review that summarized the current use of implementation strategies and their related outcomes in the implementation of physical activity interventions in LTC. This study identified how interventions are being implemented. Study Two, focused on understanding the perspectives and experiences of researchers who have led the implementation of physical activity interventions in LTC. As part of this study, six semi-structured interventions were conducted with researchers who were involved in the interventions identified through the scoping review. Study three explored the role and contribution of allied health professionals during implementation efforts through a secondary analysis of the Safer Care for Older Persons in (residential) Environments (SCOPE) trial. Results: The scoping review identified both the implementation strategies and related outcomes that have been reported in the implementation of physical activity interventions. A consultation exercise conducted as part of this review revealed unreported implementation strategies and offered further insight into the implementation of physical activity interventions. Results from researcher interviews, conducted as part of Study Two, provided new and novel insights into the experiences and perspectives of researchers, who despite being very involved in implementation efforts have historically not been included as participants in this type of research. The third and final study explored the role and contributions of allied health professionals, another group of professionals who have similarly been underrepresented in implementation research on this topic, during implementation efforts. Conclusion: Collective, this dissertation provides new and novel insights to the understanding of physical activity intervention implementation in LTC settings. While implementation is inherently complex, these findings highlight opportunities for future research, practical implications for implementation efforts, considerations for policy development which supports activity, and broader societal implications regarding how we view and understand aging.
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 | 0.114 | 0.124 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".