Older adults’ perceptions of weakness and ageing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Age-related weakness, or sarcopenia, has been related to functional disability, falls, frailty and mortality. Although it is one of the most common symptoms older adults link to their functional abilities, to date, no studies have explored older adults' perceptions of weakness and its association with ageing. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To understand the meaning of weakness for older adults' and their perceptions of its association with ageing. DESIGNS: A qualitative descriptive design involved in-depth interviews with 13 community-dwelling older adults. RESULTS: Weakness was described primarily in two ways: (i) inability and (ii) inward turning. The extreme of weakness, as giving up and giving in, which older adults applied to others, not themselves, prompted them to engage in several efforts at staying strong. These included motivating self-talk, achieving balance, keeping busy and active, and self-validating as a strong person. Older adults' perceptions of the association between weakness and ageing were variable and characterized by considerable ambiguity. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nurses must be alert to both the visible and subtler dimensions of weakness. It is important to engage older adults in active strategies that enhance muscle strength while capitalizing on their self-motivating and validating efforts at staying strong.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".