MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215048647 · doi:10.2196/29153

Internet Search Results for Older Adult Physical Activity Guidelines: Scoping Review

2021· article· en· W3215048647 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samantha M. Harden, Anna Murphy, Kathryn Ratliff, Laura E. Balis

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThe InternetCasualFraming (construction)Internet privacyMedicinePhysical activityInformation DisseminationPsychologyMedical educationWorld Wide WebComputer sciencePolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Older adults seek health-related information through casual internet searches. Yet, researchers focus on peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations as primary dissemination strategies. Representatives of mass media are alerted (passive diffusion) of new studies or recommendations, but the veracity of the information shared is not often analyzed, and when it is, the analysis is often not comprehensive. However, most older adults do not have access to peer-reviewed journal articles or paid subscription services for more reputable media outlets. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine what information was readily available (ie, open access) to older adults who may casually search the internet for physical activity recommendations. METHODS: We performed a 6-part scoping review to determine the research question and available evidence, and extract data within open-access top hits using popular online search engines. Results were categorized by a dissemination model that has categories of sources, channels, audience, and messages. RESULTS: After the iterative search process, 92 unique articles were included and coded. Only 5 (5%) cited physical activity guidelines, and most were coded as promoting healthy aging (82/92, 89%) and positive framing (84/92, 91%). Most articles were posed as educational, but the authors' credentials were rarely reported (ie, 22% of the time). Muscle strengthening and balance components of the physical activity guidelines for older adults were rarely reported (72/92, 78% and 80/92, 87%, respectively) or inaccurately reported (3/92, 3% and 3/92, 3%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistent messages lead to mistrust of science and public health representatives. This work highlights the lack of evidence within existing open-access resources. Further efforts are needed to ensure evidence-based public health messages are in the sources and channels older adults are using to inform their knowledge and behaviors.

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)0.050
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.211
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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0500.211
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0100.008
Bibliometrics0.0700.065
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0040.005
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.003

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 head0.377
GPT teacher head0.653
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207