Subjective Quality-of-Life Predictors for Older Adults with Physical Disabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study changes in quality of life (QOL) and to explore predictors of QOL of community-dwelling older adults with physical disabilities. DESIGN: A 2-yr longitudinal study involved a convenience sample of 49 people with physical disabilities aged 60-94 yrs. QOL was estimated twice at a 2-yr interval with the Quality of Life Index, which includes four domains: health and functioning, socioeconomic, psychological/spiritual, and family. The potential predictors evaluated at baseline were health condition, activity, participation (level and satisfaction), personal factors, and environmental factors (obstacles and facilitators). RESULTS: No change over time in QOL mean score was observed (mean: -0.41; SD: 2.5; 95% confidence interval: -1.1 to 0.30; P = 0.25). However, about half the participants had a clinically significant change (either increase or decrease). Greater satisfaction with participation in social roles and fewer obstacles in the physical environment were identified as the best predictors (R2 = 0.27; P = 0.001) of better QOL. Greater participation in daily activities, fewer obstacles in the physical environment, and greater satisfaction with participation in social roles were found to be the best predictors (R2 = 0.49; P < 0.001) of high health and functioning QOL. Finally, increased QOL score over the 2-yr period was best predicted by initial lower socioeconomic QOL and activity level perceived as unstable (R2 = 0.27; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: QOL is partially explained by participation and environmental factors. These factors may be positively modified and thus may warrant special attention in health interventions. Identified predictors of QOL changes over time need to be considered in intervention studies.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".