Trial reportInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022
A Pilot Study of a Group Program Focused on Enabling Life Performance for Older Adults Living in the Community.
Trial report in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study attempts to determine whether a program focused on improving literacy in daily living is effective in preventing physical frailty, and to compare standard treatments for physical frailty. Methods: This study was designed as a pilot intervention study involving two groups. Twenty-five older adults aged 65 to 85 in Ward A, Tokyo, were randomly assigned to the literacy group or the exercise group on a regional basis and were given a 60- to 90-minute program twice a month, eight times over four months. The literacy group mainly used video materials to monitor learning, and the exercise group used a multifactor exercise program. Results: The LSI-Z, GAS-L, Maximum 5 m walking time, and TUG tests showed the main effects before and after the intervention in both groups (p < 0.05, p < 0.01). The WHOQOL26, Maximum 5 m walking time, and TUG tests also showed the main effects across both groups (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Both programs, when implemented independently, showed specific effects on subjective well-being, occupational performance, and physical fitness. However, QOL and physical fitness were significantly higher in the exercise group than in the literacy group. These results should be considered with caution because of the limited sample size of this pilot study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.