Different Types of Sedentary Activities and Their Association With Perceived Health and Wellness Among Middle-Aged and Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To assess the association between a variety of sedentary activities and self-reported wellness outcomes to provide a comprehensive perspective for future development of sedentary guidelines for middle-aged and older adults. DESIGN: Cross-sectional population study. SETTING: Canadian Community Health Survey (Healthy Aging Cycle, 2008-2009). SUBJECTS: Middle-aged (45-60 years; n = 8161) and older adults (60 years and older; n = 9128) were used for analysis. MEASURES: Self-reported perceived health, sense of belonging to community, mood disorder, and satisfaction with life were used as outcomes. Sedentary activities were playing bingo, computer use, doing crosswords/puzzles, handicrafts, listening to radio/music, playing a musical instrument, reading, visiting others, and watching TV. ANALYSIS: Chi-squares, t-tests and multivariable logistic regressions. RESULTS: Among respondents not diagnosed with a mood disorder, positive associations were noted for crosswords/puzzles in older adults (odds ratio [OR]: 1.39, confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-1.91) and listening to radio/music or playing an instrument in middle-aged adults (OR: 1.43, CI: 1.16-1.75; OR: 2.14, CI: 1.17-3.81). Satisfaction with life was positively associated with computer use in middle-aged (OR: 1.53, CI: 1.07-2.20) and older adults (OR: 1.42, CI: 1.09-1.84). Sense of belonging was consistently positively associated with sedentary activities. CONCLUSION: Several sedentary activities were found to be positively associated with self-reported measures of psychosocial wellness in middle-aged and older adults. These findings identify potential opportunities for sedentary time interventions and dual-task physical activity promotion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".