Lifelong Health and Health Services Use: A New Focus for Gerontological Nursing Research and Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is commonly believed that older adults are often ill and therefore high users of health services. A pilot study involving adults 60 and older living in the Canadian province of Alberta was conducted to (a) raise interest in the concepts of lifelong health and health services use; (b) develop a lifelong health data collection tool; (c) obtain information about lifelong and recent health services use, and self-perceived lifelong and current health; and (d) reveal links (if any) between perceived health and lifelong health services use. A questionnaire was developed, pilot tested, and posted for completion by 100 volunteers. Most older adults reported good or very good current and lifelong health. Comorbidities and low finances were associated with higher health services use. These findings suggest community-dwelling older adults may be healthy currently and throughout their lives. Gerontological nursing research, practice, and advocacy are needed because myths about aging must be addressed to refocus attention on the importance of lifelong health promotion for older adults. [Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 43(2), 28-32.].
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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".