Associations of Daily Pedometer Steps and Self-Reported Physical Activity With Health-Related Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to examine associations of self-reported physical activity (PA) and pedometer steps with health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among a population-based sample of older adults. METHOD: Adults ≥55 years (N = 1,296) were recruited through random-digit dialing and responded to a questionnaire via computer-assisted telephone interviewing methods. Questionnaires assessed demographic variables and validated measures of PA and HRQoL. Participants received a step pedometer and waist circumference tape measure via post. RESULTS: Compared with participants in the low-step group (0-6,999 steps/day), participants in the high-step group (>10,000 steps/day) had significantly higher scores on mental health (Mdiff = 3.1, p < .001, confidence intervals [CI] = [1.8, 4.3]), physical health (Mdiff = 3.5, p < .001, CI = [2.2, 4.7]), and global health (Mdiff = 3.5, p < .001, CI = [2.3, 4.7]). Waist circumference and body mass index did not moderate any associations of pedometer steps and PA with HRQoL. CONCLUSION: Older adults exceeding established step thresholds reported significantly higher HRQoL indices compared with those achieving lower thresholds.
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 | 0.002 | 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".