Trial reportPloS one2025
Examining dose-response of an outdoor walk group program in the Getting Older Adults Outdoors (GO-OUT) trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Optimizing exercise regimens for quality of life in patients with cancer: a network meta-analysis and dose-response study.BMC cancer · 2026Pooled it
- The more you play, the better you feel: a dose-response analysis of pickleball and mental wellbeing in U.S. adults.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe Getting Older Adults Outdoors (GO-OUT) randomized trial showed that a 10-week outdoor walk group (OWG) program was not superior to 10 weekly phone reminders in increasing physical and mental health; however, OWG attendance varied. This study examined whether dose-response relationships existed between OWG attendance and improvement in physical and mental health among older adults with mobility limitations.
methodsWe analyzed data from 76 OWG participants with pre- and post-intervention scores on at least one of seven measures of health outcomes (walking endurance, comfortable and fast walking speed, balance, lower extremity strength, walking self-efficacy, and emotional well-being). Participants were classified as attending 0-9, 10-15, and 16-20 OWG sessions based on attendance tertiles. We adjusted for participant sex and study site in regression analyses.
resultsAmong the 76 participants, mean age was 74.9 ± 6.6 years and 72% were female. Compared to those attending 0-9 OWG sessions, participants attending 16-20 sessions exhibited a 56.3-meter greater improvement in walking endurance (95% CI: 17.3, 95.4, p = 0.005); 0.15-meter/second greater improvement in comfortable walking speed (95% CI: 0.01, 0.29, p = 0.034); and 0.18-meter/second greater improvement in fast walking speed (95% CI: 0.03, 0.34, p = 0.020). Higher attendance was associated with greater odds of improvement in comfortable walking speed (OR = 7.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 57.8, p = 0.047) and fast walking speed (OR = 10.1, 95% CI: 1.8, 72.0, p = 0.014). No significant dose-response relationships for the remaining outcomes were observed.
conclusionsHigher attendance in a park-based, supervised, task-oriented and progressive OWG program is associated with greater improvement in walking endurance and walking speed among older adults with mobility limitations. Attendance likely impacted walking capacity and not balance, lower extremity strength, walking self-efficacy or emotional well-being due to task-specificity of training. This study highlights the importance of attendance when designing and implementing OWG programs to enhance walking endurance and speed among older adults.
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.