Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40880372›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Interest in brief resistance training workouts among older US adults with and without mobility disability.

Jordan D Kurth, Christopher N Sciamanna, Margaret K Danilovich, David E Conroy, Kathryn H Schmitz, Matthew Silvis, Liza S Rovniak, Robert Creath, Ema V Karakoleva

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Jordan D KurthThe Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6739-0726
Christopher N SciamannaThe Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Margaret K DanilovichCJE SeniorLife, Leonard Schanfield Research Institute, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
David E ConroyDepartment of Kinesiology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Kathryn H SchmitzDepartment of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-2400-2935
Matthew SilvisPenn State College of Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Liza S RovniakPenn State College of Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Robert CreathDepartment of Exercise Science, Lebanon Valley College, Annville, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Ema V KarakolevaPenn State College of Medicine, The Pennsylvania State University, Hershey, Pennsylvania, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

objectivesResistance training (RT) improves strength and physical function; however, only 35% of older adults meet national guidelines for muscle strengthening activities. Though time is often noted as a barrier to physical activity participation, little is known about the interest of older adults in brief RT programs. This study compared preferences for brief, more frequent vs longer, less frequent RT programs.

methodsA nationwide survey was conducted among 611 US adults aged 65 and over. Preference for either (1) a traditional (45 minutes per session, three days per week) RT program or (2) a short (5 minutes per session, daily) RT program was compared.

resultsOverall, 2.2 times as many older adults preferred the daily 5-minute RT program versus the traditional RT program (68.4% v. 31.6%). Preference for the brief, daily RT program was 5.3 times higher among adults with difficulty walking (84.2% v. 15.8%) than for the traditional RT program.

conclusionPreference for a daily 5-minute RT program is significantly higher than for traditional 45-minute, three times weekly programs. This difference is larger in older adults who have serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. SIGNIFICANCE/IMPLICATIONS: Brief daily RT options may help engage older adults in RT at a population level, particularly those with poorer health and mobility disability. Future investigations should evaluate differences in uptake, adherence, and outcomes from two RT programs of varying durations and frequencies.

Indexed as

Mobility LimitationPersons with DisabilitiesResistance TrainingAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMuscle StrengthSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesWalking

Identifiers

PMID40880372
PMCPMC12396725

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.