MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3048339358 · doi:10.1017/s0714980820000124

What Factors Shape Self-Reported Health Among Community-Dwelling Older Adults? A Scoping Review

2020· review· en· W3048339358 on OpenAlexaff
Carly Whitmore, Maureen Markle‐Reid, Kathryn Fisher, Carrie McAiney, Jenny Ploeg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyGerontologySelf-rated healthPopulationMedicinePsychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-reported health is a predictive measure of morbidity and mortality across populations. A comprehensive understanding of the factors that shape self-reported health among community-dwelling older adults, a growing population globally, is lacking. The aim of this review was to summarize the factors that are associated with self-reported health among this population and identify key areas for future research. Accordingly, we conducted a scoping review using the stage-wise framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley. We summarized 42 factors, as identified in 30 publications, and organized them into four categories. Key factors shaping self-reported health included the presence of chronic conditions and depressive symptoms. As the population of community-dwelling older adults continues to increase, there remains a need to understand how these identified factors shape self-reported health. To date, empirical research has been limited to observational and cross-sectional designs. There is a need to further explore these factors in longitudinal data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.005
Bibliometrics0.0100.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissementSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207