Can personal and environmental factors explain participation of older adults?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study explores the extent to which personal and environmental factors explain participation in daily activities and social roles of older adults with chronic conditions. METHOD: Two hundred older adults with chronic conditions completed the following assessments: Assessment of Life Habits (participation); Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (social support); Activities Specific Balance Confidence Scale (balance confidence); Timed Up and Go Test (mobility capacity); and Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (depression symptomatology). RESULTS: Mobility and balance confidence explained 30% of the level of participation in daily activities and 24% of participation in social roles, whereas social support and depression did not contribute to the explanation of participation. When explaining participation in daily activities, sex had a significant contribution to the model. CONCLUSIONS: Participation accomplishment is explained by personal factors related to an elder's physical and mental ability while sex differences had an important role for explaining accomplishment of daily activities. Additional aspects of participation, environmental barriers, and level of disability, are key factors identified for further inquiry.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".