| Title |
“I am active”: effects of a program to promote active aging
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Interventions in Aging, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/cia.s79511 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Neyda Ma Mendoza-Ruvalcaba, Elva Dolores Arias-Merino |
| Abstract |
Active aging involves a general lifestyle strategy that allows preservation of both physical and mental health during the aging process. "I am Active" is a program designed to promote active aging by increased physical activity, healthy nutritional habits, and cognitive functioning. The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness of this program. Sixty-four healthy adults aged 60 years or older were recruited from senior centers and randomly allocated to an experimental group (n=31) or a control group (n=33). Baseline, post-test, and 6-month follow-up assessments were performed after the theoretical-practical intervention. Effect sizes were calculated. At the conclusion of the program, the experimental group showed significant improvement compared with the control group in the following domains: physical activity (falls risk, balance, flexibility, self-efficacy), nutrition (self-efficacy and nutritional status), cognitive performance (processing speed and self-efficacy), and quality of life (general, health and functionality, social and economic status). Although some declines were reported, improvements at follow-up remained in self-efficacy for physical activity, self-efficacy for nutrition, and processing speed, and participants had better nutritional status and quality of life overall. Our findings show that this program promotes improvements in domains of active aging, mainly in self-efficacy beliefs as well as in quality of life in healthy elders. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Colombia | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 67% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 295 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 293 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 37 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 37 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 27 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 9% |
| Researcher | 24 | 8% |
| Other | 53 | 18% |
| Unknown | 91 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 38 | 13% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 12% |
| Psychology | 35 | 12% |
| Sports and Recreations | 31 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 17 | 6% |
| Other | 39 | 13% |
| Unknown | 99 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 July 2015.
All research outputs
#15,168,964
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#1,010
of 1,968 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#138,590
of 278,920 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Interventions in Aging
#15
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,968 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 278,920 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.