“What do you expect? You're just getting older”: A comparison of perceived osteoarthritis‐related and aging‐related health experiences in middle‐ and older‐age adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the health experiences of middle- and older-age adults with moderate osteoarthritis (OA) symptoms with experiences of individuals with no chronic health conditions. Similarities and differences in health changes, the meaning of these changes, and their impact were examined. METHODS: Sixteen focus groups (10 OA, 6 control) were conducted with 53 women and 37 men (age 39-88 years). OA participants were recruited from practitioners' offices and The Arthritis Society, Ontario Division. Additional OA participants and controls were recruited from community centers and newspaper advertisements. All participants were asked about changes in health, the impact of these changes, and self-management strategies. Participants also completed standardized measures including demographic information; the Short Form 36; Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire. RESULTS: Differences in the depth, breadth, and meaning of symptoms such as pain, stiffness, and fatigue were reported with little overlap between OA and control groups. OA was often seen as part of a normal aging process requiring acceptance, not treatment. However, younger OA participants reported more distress and frustration managing the disease. OA participants reported an impact of their health on work, leisure, social activities, and relationships that was described as upsetting compared with controls. CONCLUSION: This study illuminates personal and social factors associated with OA by comparing health experiences of individuals with OA and controls. It highlights directions for future research that can improve our understanding of the needs of individuals with OA and can help link individuals' health status to the broader framework of their lives.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".