Perceived barriers and contributors to sense of purpose in life in retirement community residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite the growing use of retirement communities and ageing care facilities, little is known about how residing in retirement residences may impact aspects of older adult wellbeing. Living in these communities may hold particular influence on residents’ sense of purpose, if they feel limited in their opportunities for individual action, or could serve to promote purposefulness depending on the social connections available. The current study sought to explore contributing factors as well as barriers to purpose in older adults living in three continuing care retirement communities. Using brief semi-structured interviews, 18 older adults were asked to describe their purpose in life, community-related activities and any perceived challenges limiting their ability to pursue this purpose. Thematic analysis was used to examine themes common across interviews. Interviews presented a mixed picture of the nature of purposefulness in retirement facilities. Residents espoused several benefits of community living such as social and leisure opportunities, while also noting several obstacles to their purpose, including health concerns and the belief that purpose in life was not relevant for older adults. These findings provide insight into how older adults can derive a sense of purpose from activities within their retirement community and how facilities can better tailor programmes to promote purposefulness and support personally valued roles for residents.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".