Psychological and environmental factors for older adults to exercise: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research investigation concerning potential motivators and psychological influences on health and physical exercise participation have increased worldwide in the last two decades. In contrast, few investigations have analysed this phenomenon in older people living in different contexts. Older adults suffer a notable diminution of physical functions that may be followed by psychological disorders and are detrimental to their affective and social relationships. Therefore, it is of great importance to find strategies that increase the participation of older adults' in regular exercise. A systematic review of 945 studies was conducted. All of the 27 studies reviewed, that met the inclusion criteria, have undertaken mixed-method, qualitative and qualitative approaches. The data were extracted based on the following variables: the methodology and the instrument/questionnaire used, the type of article, number of participants, duration and intensity of the interventions, profile of the older adults, most relevant findings and the country where the study was developed. The instruments used in the studies, were mainly semi-structured interviews, discussion groups and questionnaires, focusing mainly on the United States and Canada. The knowledge of psychological and environmental factors is a key aspect relevant to both the social and physical aspects and has a strong influence on older people's commitment to exercise, influencing their wellbeing. The aim of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators of adherence to a physical exercise programme for older adults.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".