Psychosocial predictors of physical activity in older aged asthmatics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: there is little information available on physical activity (PA) patterns and the psychosocial determinants of PA in older adults with asthma. OBJECTIVE: to quantify the prevalence of PA in older asthmatics and to explore the potential psychosocial determinants of PA in this population. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: cross-sectional data available from the Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS), cycle 2.1, were used. There was a total of 1,772 older asthmatics in the sample. RESULTS: there were significant differences in the prevalence of PA between older asthmatic females compared to middle-aged asthmatic females (chi(2) = 23.65, P < 0.0001) and older asthmatics compared to older non-asthmatics (chi(2) = 38.1, P < 0.0001). Logistic regression revealed a significant association between PA and perceived health in older asthmatic males (OR = 5.39, CI = 1.36-21.33) and females (OR = 4.81, CI = 1.41-16.38). Being a member of a volunteer organisation was also significantly associated with PA in older asthmatic females (OR = 1.59, CI = 1.11-2.30). CONCLUSION: older asthmatics were less active than their non-asthmatic peers. Perceived health was an important predictor of PA in both older asthmatic males and females. Exercise interventions in this population should make an effort to improve self-perceived health.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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".