Coping strategies associated with participation and quality of life in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is important to understand the coping strategies that optimize or restrict participation or quality of life, especially for older adults. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the associations between, on the one hand, problem- and emotion-focused coping strategies used to deal with aging limitations or health problems and, on the other hand, participation and quality of life. METHOD: A cross-sectional design was used with 82 community-dwelling participants aged 65 and older. FINDINGS: Participants used both problem-focused (distancing, self-control) and emotion-focused (seeking social support, planful problem solving, positive appraisal) coping strategies to deal with aging limitations or health problems. Only a few moderately significant associations were found except for escape-avoidance coping strategies, which were significantly associated with lower participation and quality of life. IMPLICATIONS: Before developing interventions to improve or maintain older adults' participation and quality of life, more studies are needed to better understand coping strategies used by older adults to deal with aging limitations or health problems and especially escape-avoidance strategies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".