Facilitators of and Barriers to Physical Activity in Retirement Communities: Experiences of Older Women in Urban Areas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older people are being encouraged to be physically active for as long as possible as a preventive measure against disease and functional decline. It remains, however, uncertain how living in a retirement community affects physical activity (PA). OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to understand the PA experiences of older women living in retirement communities and what they experience as facilitators of and barriers to PA. DESIGN: The study was qualitative and guided by the Vancouver School of doing phenomenology, a unique blend of phenomenology, hermeneutics, and constructivism. METHOD: Participants were 10 women, aged from 72 to 97 years (mean=84 years). In-depth interviews were conducted, recorded, transcribed, and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: A model was constructed with 3 main themes: (1) the women themselves, including their experienced health condition, individual aspects of functioning, and various personal factors; (2) the physical environment; and (3) the social environment. These main themes all include subthemes of experienced influences on PA, such as health, design of housing and environment, and local culture. These influences could both facilitate and hinder PA, depending on the context. The facilitating effects of good outdoor areas, accessible physical training facilities, a familiar neighborhood, and finding joy in PA were clear in the study. The barriers included worsening health, a colder climate with ice and wind, and lack of a PA culture within the retirement community. CONCLUSIONS: An older woman's residence may strongly influence her ability and motivation to be physically active. Physical therapists should acquaint themselves with the facilitators of and barriers to PA of women within retirement communities and use that knowledge to influence the physical and social environment and to target PA interventions to the women themselves.
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) | 0.001 | 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".