Effectiveness of Lifestyle Interventions on Healthy Aging in Older Adults: A Global Meta-Analysis with Implications for Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:: With the world population rapidly aging, healthy aging has become a matter of population health, especially in countries such as Saudi Arabia, where Vision 2030 seeks to raise life expectancy and health outcomes. This paper proposes a detailed meta-analysis determining the efficacy of lifestyle (e.g., physical activity, nutrition education, and psychosocial support) intervention on health outcomes in older adults with national policy planning implications. Methods::The reviewed data were gathered using peer-reviewed publications or studies published between 2023 and 2025 and national surveys that covered the Saudi Health Survey and GASTAT reports. The research quantitatively examined 16 lifestyle-based interventions that addressed adults aged 60 and older, which included chronic disease management, physical frailty, mental health, and self-reported health. The statistical tests of the difference between the pre-intervention and post-intervention change were t-tests such as paired t-tests and a p-value of less than or equal to 0.05. Results:The outcomes indicate that there are critical changes improving a number of health indicators. Compliance of the physical activity improved by 17 percent (p < 0.01), control of blood pressure improved by 13 percent (p = 0.03), and self-management in the chronic illnesses improved by 15 percent (p < 0.01). The prevalence of sarcopenia decreased at 9 percent, and the salt intake in the diet decreased at 19 percent (p < 0.05). Additionally, the quality-of-life scores went up by 30 percent due to intervention. These results are consistent with the global standards of Japan, South Korea, and Canada confirming the effectiveness of community-based and adapted to the culture techniques. Conclusion:Lifestyle interventions provide important physical and psychological health outcomes in aging individuals. Having noted that the health dangers continue to persist otherwise, with a vast prevalence of hypertension and low physical activity, the findings are indications of how proactive and integrative health promotion can be transformative.
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 | 0.027 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".