Medical and Everyday Assistive Device Use among Older Adults with Arthritis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This research compared older adults' use of medical assistive devices (ADs) with their use of everyday ADs as a means of managing chronic physical disability. The study also examined whether predisposing, need, and enabling factors were associated with device use in three domains of activity: personal care / in-home mobility, household activities, and community mobility. Participants were 248 adults, aged 55 years and older, with a wide range of disability levels as a result of osteoarthritis. All participants were administered an in-depth, structured questionnaire, as part of a larger study examining older adults' independence and adaptation to chronic physical illness. The results revealed that respondents actively adapted to their disabilities and used a wide range of medical and everyday devices, with everyday devices being reported more than twice as often as medical ADs and the fewest devices overall being reported for community mobility. In general, medical devices were used when subjective and objective need for ADs was considerable. Everyday devices were reported earlier in the trajectory of the disease, at mild and moderate disability levels, and were associated with a broader pattern of adaptation that included planning to avoid problems, exercise, and pacing activities.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".