The Relations between Disability and Environmental Factors: A Pilot Study in Iranian Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study explored disability and its correlations with the environmental factors in a group of Iranian older adults. MATERIALS & METHODS: A cross sectional study was performed. One hundred participants receiving adult day care services in Kahrizak center in Iran were selected by using the complete enumeration method. The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2 (WHODAS II) and the Craig Hospital Inventory of Environmental Factors (CHIEF) questionnaires were used to collect data. RESULTS: The mean score of disability was 20.61±13.66, and the scores were higher in women compared to men (P=0.001). Among the CHIEF-25 items‚ the most frequently perceived barrier by the participants was transportation followed by home design and unavailability of health care services. There was a significant association between the disability scores and the environmental factors (P<0.001). Also, significant relationships were found between the disability and all the subscales investigated in the study (polices‚ physical/structural‚ attitude/support‚ services/assistance) (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Appropriate transportation‚ availability to health care services and removing physical/structural barriers should be taken in consideration.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".