Comparison of Social Participation Level Between Older Adults With Assistive Mobility Devices and Those Without the Devices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Social participation is an important aspect of health in ageing. It is also a part of life and a key element in function that improves physical and psychological health in the elderly. Using assistive mobility devices may influence social participation in this population. Current study aimed to compare social participation in older adults who use assistive mobility devices with those who do not use assistive devices in Tehran. Methods & Materials: In this cross-sectional study, older adults with and without assistive mobility devices were comprised in their social participation. Seventy-nine old age adults (39 women and 40 men) who were 60 years or older were recruited using convenience sampling method. They completed life habit, mini mental state and demographic questionnaires. For analyzing continuous data with normal distribution, t test and ANOVA were used, while Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used for categorical variables or those with non-normal distribution. Results: The finding indicates that older adults with assistive mobility devices engage less in social participation than those who do not use these devices (P<0.05). Older adults in age group of 60-74 years had higher social participation in comparison with those in 75-89 age group (P<0.05). There was no significant differences between male and females, and single older adults and married ones in their social participation. Conclusion: Type of assistive device affects social participation in older adults. The results suggest that older adults with higher physical ability have higher social participation. Older adults who use assistive devices face with more limitations to participate socially in their community. It is necessary for rehabilitation team to pay attention in improving social participation of older adults.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".