Psychological well-being in relation to frailty: a frailty identity crisis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Frailty can be defined as the presence of multiple, interacting medical and functional problems. Frailty is associated with psychiatric conditions but its relation to psychological well-being is unclear. A "frailty identity crisis" has been proposed as a maladaptive response to the sense of self as health deficits accumulate. We evaluated this so-called identity crisis by investigating associations between well-being, frailty, and mortality in community-dwelling older Canadians. METHODS: In this secondary analysis of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging (N = 5,703; age 70+), frailty was defined by an index of 33 health deficits. Psychological well-being was measured using Ryff's 18-item scale, with six domains (autonomy, personal growth, environmental mastery, positive relations, purpose in life, and self-acceptance). Cognition was measured using the Modified Mini-Mental State Examination. Associations between well-being, frailty, and mortality were measured using linear regression, adjusting for age, sex, education, cognition, and mental health. RESULTS: For each additional frailty-defining deficit, the psychological well-being score worsened by 0.3 points (0.29, 95% CI: 0.22-0.36, p < 0.001), independent of age, sex, education, cognition, and mental health. Among the six domains of well-being, only "purpose in life" and "autonomy" were not associated with frailty (all others, p < 0.001). Worse psychological well-being was associated with five-year mortality independent of age, sex, education, frailty, and mental health; this association was not statistically significant when adjusting for baseline cognition. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty was associated with low levels of well-being. Psychological well-being impaired by a frailty identity crisis may play an important role in defining subjective health in older adults.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".