Health Behavior Change Following Chronic Illness in Middle and Later Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Understanding lifestyle improvements among individuals with chronic illness is vital for targeting interventions that can increase longevity and improve quality of life. METHODS: Data from the U.S. Health and Retirement Study were used to examine changes in smoking, alcohol use, and exercise 2-14 years after a diagnosis of heart disease, diabetes, cancer, stroke, or lung disease. RESULTS: Patterns of behavior change following diagnosis indicated that the vast majority of individuals diagnosed with a new chronic condition did not adopt healthier behaviors. Smoking cessation among those with heart disease was the largest observed change, but only 40% of smokers quit. There were no significant increases in exercise for any health condition. Changes in alcohol consumption were small, with significant declines in excessive drinking and increases in abstention for a few health conditions. Over the long term, individuals who made changes appeared to maintain those changes. Latent growth curve analyses up to 14 years after diagnosis showed no average long-term improvement in health behaviors. DISCUSSION: Results provide important new information on health behavior changes among those with chronic disease and suggest that intensive efforts are required to help initiate and maintain lifestyle improvements among this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".