Constructing the moral body: Self-care among older adults with multiple chronic conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults are increasingly living with and managing multiple chronic conditions. The self-management of illness occurs in a social and political context in which the responsibility for health has shifted from the State to the individual, who is expected to be an active consumer of health care. Although there has been extensive investigation of the management of single chronic conditions, the realities of living with multiple morbidities have largely been ignored, particularly among older adults. Addressing this gap, our study entailed in-depth interviews with 35 older Canadian adults, aged 73 to 91, who had between three and 14 chronic conditions. Self-care emerged as a primary means by which our participants managed their illnesses. Specifically, all of our participants were engaged in some form of self-care in order to cope with often debilitating physical symptoms and functional losses. They also utilized self-care because they had reached the limits of available medical treatment options. Finally, our participants argued that self-care was a moral responsibility that was underscored by gendered motivations. Whereas the men tended to emphasize the importance of self-care for the achievement of masculine ideals of control and invulnerability, the women suggested that self-care allowed them to maintain feminine norms of selflessness and sensitivity to the needs of others. In this way, self-care enabled the men and women to reframe their aging, chronically ill bodies as moral, socially valued bodies. We discuss our findings in relation to the extant research and theorizing pertaining to self-care, gender, and healthism.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".