A systematic review of social support for participation in physical activity-based recreation programs for older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participation in physical activity with others can prevent isolation and improve psychological adjustment (Government of Canada, 2014). Social support and has been identified as important for older adults' initiation and maintenance of participation in physical activity (McAuley et al., 2003). Broadly defined, social support, refers to interpersonal interactions intended as helpful. While the benefits of social support are recognized, it is conceptualized and measured in a wide variety of ways, and it is unclear what types of social support enable participation in physical activity. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate what types of social support have been used in the extant literature on physical activity participation among older adults. Following PRISMA guidelines (Moher et al., 2009), we searched nine databases for studies pertaining to social support, physical activity, and aging. N=74 randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental, longitudinal, and correlational studies were identified. Social support was conceptualized in terms of joint participation in physical activity, modeling, norms, cohesion, reinforcement, and supportive functions. Sources of social support identified in the literature were friends, family, partners, spouses, social network members, and healthcare professionals. Access to social support was measured by having a companion, marital status, social network characteristics, and satisfaction with social contacts. Identifying these conceptualizations of social support is the first phase in a larger systematic review aiming to identify what forms of social support are important to enable physical activity participation and to determine if the extent the literature has addressed the needs of vulnerable populations of older adults.Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the assistance of Alix Hayden, University of Calgary Librarian, and support from a University of Calgary, University Research Grants Committee, Social Sciences and Humanities seed grant.
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 | 0.008 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".