Factors influencing sedentary behaviour in older adults: An ecological approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults represent one of the most sedentary populations worldwide, and as a result are at risk of negative health outcomes. Knowledge translation tools and public health promotion strategies are needed; however, little evidence is available to inform framing of such tools or development of intervention programs. Using Owen et al.'s (2011) ecological model, the current study examined the four sedentary behaviour domains; household, transport, leisure time and occupation with participants drawn from community seniors centres. The participants (n=26, 74±8.5 years) were involved in a range of sedentary and physical activities at the centres. Four focus groups were conducted to examine perceptions of sedentary behaviour, the range of activities participated in, factors influencing participation etc. Two dominant themes emerged, barriers and promoters of sedentary behaviour and these were further delineated into intrinsic and extrinsic factors. Results were synthesized to develop appropriate messaging and greater uptake of programming and guidelines thereby informing public health strategies. For example, in order to develop successful programs to combat sedentary behaviours the program should include both a social component and a mentally stimulating component, as these were identified for enjoyment and motivation. In conclusion the results clearly supported that sedentary time reduction strategies will need to consider each of the four domains in which older adults accumulate sedentary time. Acknowledgments: UOIT Internal Funding
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it