Evidências da contribuição dos programas de assistência ao idoso na promoção do envelhecimento saudável no Brasil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To search the literature for evidence of the contribution of elderly health programs to the process of healthy aging in Brazil. METHODS: The databases Science Direct, SciELO, LILACS, IBECS, the Cochrane Library, and MEDLINE were searched to find articles focusing on initiatives developed for the elderly population and to promote healthy aging, providing a multidimensional evaluation of the quality of life of the elderly, and covering aspects relating to specific health promotion practices. The initiatives were considered effective if the following criteria were met: having goals that included the improvement of health and well-being, having a focus on holistic health, using empowerment as a central mechanism to improve health, and meeting the prerequisites for health and developing actions in the priority areas described in the Ottawa Charter. RESULTS: Ten articles referring to five elderly health promotion programs in Brazil were identified. All the programs met the efficacy criteria, and included elements that promoted healthy aging through characteristics that fostered the insertion of the elderly in society through the creation of a support environment for the prevention of injury, increase in functional capacity, and improvement of quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Studies are required to produce scientific evidence on the efficacy, efficiency, and effectiveness of elderly health programs to determine the value of these actions to promote healthy aging.
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 | 0.013 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".