ArticlePloS one2024
Comparing preferences to evaluations of barrier self-efficacy for two strength training programs in US older adults.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Association of Pickleball Participation With Decreased Perceived Loneliness and Social Isolation: Results of a National Survey.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesEngagement in regular physical activity is one of the best strategies for older adults to remain healthy. Unfortunately, only 35% of older adults meet guidelines for muscle strengthening activities. Eliciting participant preferences is one possible way to improve physical activity engagement. However, other sources of participant input to improve uptake and maintenance remain uninvestigated. This study compared preferences to self-efficacy ratings for two strength training programs.
methodsWe conducted a national cross-sectional survey of 611 US adults over age 65. We compared two participant evaluations (the preferred program and the program for which they had higher barrier self-efficacy) of two hypothetical strength training programs (45 minutes performed three times per week (traditional) and 5 minutes performed daily (brief)).
resultsMost participants (68%) preferred the brief strength training program. The difference in self-efficacy ratings was an average of 1.2 (SD = 0.92). One in five participants preferred a strength training program for which they had less self-efficacy; nearly all of these participants (92%) preferred the traditional strength training program but had more self-efficacy for the brief strength training program.
conclusionOlder adults reported preferring and having more self-efficacy for a brief compared to a traditional strength training program. Differences in self-efficacy ratings between the two strength training programs were large. Preferences were often not congruent with ratings of self-efficacy. SIGNIFICANCE/IMPLICATIONS: Preferences for strength training programming may not always reflect the program most likely to be maintained. Future investigations should evaluate differences in behavioral uptake, maintenance, and outcomes from two comparative strength training interventions using preferences and self-efficacy.
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.