Association Between Prevention Focus and Sedentary Behavior in Older Adults: Cross-Sectional Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Older adults engage in increased amounts of sedentary behavior (SB), which can result in a significant decline in muscle function and overall health. An understanding of the motivational driving factors that lead older adults to engage in SB can help to create effective intervention programs. Objective: This study aimed to determine the association between prevention and promotion focus with SB in older adults, as well as compare these associations with two factors (ie, age and BMI) that are commonly known to have an association with SB among older adults. Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted among 93 community-dwelling older adults with a mean age of 74.98 (SD 6.68) years. Prevention and promotion focus were both assessed using the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire. Correlation analysis was performed to determine the associations between prevention focus, promotion focus, age, and BMI with SB. Anderson-Darling tests confirmed nonnormal data distributions for all factors (except age); therefore, Spearman rank correlation was used to determine correlations between factors. Comparative analysis of significant correlations was performed using Fisher Z transformation. Results: Prevention focus had the greatest statistically significant correlation with SB (ρ=0.296; P=.004), followed by BMI (ρ=0.204; P=.049). Both age (ρ=0.116; P=.27) and promotion focus (ρ=0.002; P=.99) had statistically insignificant correlations with SB, indicating no associations. The correlation between prevention focus and SB did not significantly differ from the correlation between BMI and SB (P=.51). Conclusions: Prevention focus was found to have a weak, but significant positive association with SB in older adults. Although age and BMI have been found to have an association with SB in previous literature, age was not associated with SB in this study, while BMI had a significant but relatively weaker association with SB than that with prevention focus. However, the association found between BMI and SB did not statistically differ from the association found between prevention focus and SB. These findings suggest that older adults could be driven to engage in increased amounts of SB due to having a dominant prevention focus, which revolves around thoughts of safety and avoiding negative consequences. The recognition of this association has the potential to aid in developing intervention programs that could promote shifting from prevention to promotion focus, thereby reducing SB in older adults.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».