Adaptation to disability in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: neglected relationships to older adults' perceptions of independence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study extends understanding of the relationship between disability and independence in older adults with COPD. METHODS: An interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to examine disability, adaptation, perceptions of independence, and self-efficacy in a sample of 50 community-dwelling older adults. Odds ratios were used to investigate relationships between variables. RESULTS: Participants used a wide range of behavioural strategies to adapt to their disability including: limiting activities, optimizing performance (e.g. taking rests), compensating for lost function (e.g. using equipment), and obtaining help from others. The relative use of these adaptations varied across five domains of activity: personal care, in-home mobility, household activities, community mobility, and valued activities. Most participants felt very or extremely independent in all domains. In personal care, those who reported greater disability (O.R. = 0.26), more frequent attempts to optimize performance (O.R. = 0.57), or greater reliance on help from others (O.R. = 0.79) were significantly (p < 0.05) less likely to feel very or extremely independent. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between disability and perceptions of independence depends on the nature of the activity and is influenced by factors that are amenable to study and intervention. In particular, the vast array of behavioural strategies available to older adults with COPD enables them to feel highly independent despite disability.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".