Depressive symptoms among older adults in urban and rural areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine if there are differences in depressive symptoms between residents of urban areas, small town zones, and predominantly rural regions and to determine factors associated with depressive symptoms among these groups of residents. METHOD: The study was set in the Canadian province of Manitoba amongst a community-dwelling population of older adults who were cognitively intact. The design of the study was a cross-sectional survey and measures included age, gender, education, living arrangements, number of persons providing companionship, perceived adequacy of income, functional impairment, self-rated health and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression (CES-D) scale. Urban/rural residence was measured by grouping Census sub-divisions according to 1991 Census population: urban (>19,999); small town (2500 to 19,999); or predominantly rural (<2500). RESULTS: In the total sample (n = 1382), 11.5% exhibited depressive symptoms: 11.6% in urban areas (n = 844); 14.0% in small town zones (n = 250); 9.0% in predominantly rural regions (n = 288) (p > 0.05, chi-square test). No rural-urban differences were seen in multivariate models. In predominantly rural regions, living alone, perceiving one's income as inadequate, and having functional impairment were associated with depressive symptoms. The only significant factor in small town zones was poorer self-rated health whereas in urban areas, poorer self-rated health, functional impairment, and fewer persons providing companionship were significantly related to depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: We did not observe rural-urban differences. However, the factors associated with depressive symptoms varied among older adults living in predominantly rural regions, in small towns, and in urban areas.
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 | 0.000 | 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".