Does optimizing Choose to Move – a health-promoting program for older adults – enhance scalability, program implementation and effectiveness?

Table 5 Adjusted means (95% Confidence interval) for impact outcome measures by time point and age group

	Months	Full sample (n = 1125)	< 75 years (n = 783)^a	≥ 75 years (n = 319)^a	p-value Full sample 0–3 mos	p-value < 75 yrs 0–3 mos	p-value ≥ 75 yrs 0–3 mos
Physical activity (# days/week > 30 min)	0	2.1 (2.0, 2.2)	2.0 (1.8, 2.1)	2.3 (2.1, 2.6)
Physical activity (# days/week > 30 min)	3	3.4 (3.3, 3.5)	3.4 (3.3, 3.6)	3.3 (3.1, 3.6)	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001
Mobility (% reporting any limitation)	0	454 (40.6%)	290 (37.2%)	159 (50.3%)
Mobility (% reporting any limitation)	3	324 (34.6%)	199 (30.8%)	121 (44.8%)	0.005	0.010	0.184
Mobility (MAT-sf score, 30–80)	0	51.4 (50.8, 52.0)	52.7 (52.0, 53.4)	47.9 (46.8, 49.1)
Mobility (MAT-sf score, 30–80)	3	52.3 (51.7, 52.9)	53.4 (52.9, 54.3)	49.0 (47.9, 50.2)	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.002
Social Isolation (score, 0–20)	0	12.0 (11.8, 12.3)	11.7 (11.4, 12.0)	12.8 (12.4, 13.3)
Social Isolation (score, 0–20)	3	12.8 (12.6, 13.1)	12.6 (12.3, 12.9)	13.3 (12.9, 13.8)	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.017
Loneliness (score, 3–9)	0	5.21 (5.09, 5.31)	5.35 (5.22, 5.48)	4.83 (4.62, 5.04)
Loneliness (score, 3–9)	3	5.04 (4.92, 5.15)	5.12 (4.98, 5.25)	4.86 (4.64, 5.07)	< 0.001	< 0.001	0.775

MAT-sf (mobility assessment tool-short form): higher score indicates greater perceived mobility; Social isolation: higher score indicates a larger social network; Loneliness: lower score indicates lower feelings of loneliness. ^a23 participants did not provide their age so the sample size across these two columns does not match the total

ISSN: 1479-5868