Examining the Effects of Participation in Leisure and Social Activities on General Health and Life Satisfaction of Older Canadian Adults With Disability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The Health and well-being of older Canadian adults have been extensively studied; however, less is known about the health and well-being of older Canadian adults with a disability. Objective: This study was done to determine if participation in leisure and social activities has a significant independent effect on the overall health and life satisfaction of older Canadian adults with a disability. Methods: A secondary analysis of cross-sectional data from the 2006 Participation and Activity Limitation Surveys (PALS) was performed. Respondents were those who reported disability and were at least 65 years of age at the time of the PALS 2006 (n=7,500, representing 1,755,870 Canadians). “Participation in social and leisure activities” was measured based on four types of activities outside the home in 12 months prior to the survey. The single-item measure of self-rated health was used to measure overall health. Life satisfaction was measures based on five items. Weighted data were used to describe the target population. Two sets of multivariate logistic regressions were conducted based on data for the total sample, and separately for men and women using bootstrapped weights. Results: A significant independent effect of participation in leisure and social activities on the general health and life satisfaction of older Canadians with a disability, for both men and women, was confirmed. Conclusion: Participation in leisure and social activities is a potential venue to enhance the health and well-being of older Canadian adults with a disability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".