Improving Healthy Daily Activity in Older Adults with Multimorbidity: Efficacy and Acceptability of ActiveOT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nearly half of U.S. older adults have multimorbidity (≥2 chronic conditions) in addition to functional limitations that restrict engagement in health-promoting daily activity (e.g., sleep, medication-taking, physical activity). We tested a combination of behavioral activation and occupational therapy (n = 21) compared to brief education (n = 20) on performance of health-promoting daily activity, measured by the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) at baseline, 10 weeks, and 22 weeks. “ActiveOT” was delivered by occupational therapists in 10 once-weekly sessions in participant homes. On average, the 41 participants were 73 years old, female, and identified as White. They averaged 4.0 chronic conditions (SD = 1.3), and 1.6 functional limitations (SD = 1.5). Baseline scores were not different between groups. At 10-weeks, the ActiveOT group had higher COPM scores (M = 7.3, SD = 1.7) compared to controls (M = 4.9, SD = 1.8; t(35)= 4.32, p < 0.001). This trend continued at the 22-week follow-up where the ActiveOT group had higher COPM scores (M = 7.8, SD = 1.2) than controls (M = 5.3, SD = 1.8; t (33) =4.81, p < 0.001). Between-group COPM scores reflected large effect sizes at 10 weeks (Cohen’s d = 1.42) and 22 weeks (Cohen’s d = 1.63), and 89% of ActiveOT participants experienced clinically meaningful improvements (MCID=3). We conducted semi-structured follow-up interviews with ActiveOT participants (n = 15) to understand the acceptability and satisfaction with the intervention and study processes. ActiveOT participants reported overall satisfaction with the intervention and appreciated the flexibility of goal areas and person-centered focus. ActiveOT participants demonstrated improved performance of health-promoting daily activity and evaluated the intervention favorably. Future work will focus on implementation of ActiveOT in primary care contexts.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".