Functional impairment and depressive symptoms in older adults: Mitigating effects of hope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We examined trait hopefulness and its component subscales of agency and pathways as potential moderators of the association between functional impairment and depressive symptoms, hypothesizing that hopefulness would buffer this association. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, interview-based. METHODS: Older adult, primary care patients (N= 105; 62% female) completed measures of cognitive functioning, functional impairment, medical illness burden, trait hope, and depressive symptoms. RESULTS: Functional impairment was significantly positively associated with depressive symptoms and dispositional hope total score moderated this relationship. Independently, the pathways subscale was a significant moderator and agency neared significance, yet their interaction was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults with functional impairment appear to benefit from agency and pathways; either subcomponent alone or their additive effect can activate hopefulness. Facilitation of infrastructure (pathways), primarily, and self-efficacy (agency), secondarily, may be important strategies for reducing depressive symptoms in elderly patients with functional impairment.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".