Associations of functional disability and behavioural risk factors with social participation of older adults: a cross-sectional analysis from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine: (1) the associations of functional disability and behavioural risk factors with social participation; and (2) whether the association between functional disability and social participation is modified by co-occurrence of behavioural risk factors. DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis of data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging. SETTING: A national stratified sample of 51 388 individuals living in the 10 Canadian provinces at the time of baseline data collection (2011-2015). PARTICIPANTS: Participants included men and women aged 45-85 years and residing in the communities in the 10 Canadian provinces. OUTCOME MEASURES: Social participation was assessed using frequency of participant involvement in eight different social activities in the past 12 months. Responses for each category were converted into number of days per month. Total social participation score (range: 0-180) was based on summing frequencies over all eight activities representing number of social activities per month. RESULTS: Functional disability was associated with participating in fewer social activities (difference in mean total social participation score, b=-1.1, 95% CI -1.5 to -0.7). In comparison to no behavioural risk factors, presence of any one (b=-2.7, 95% CI -3.1 to -2.3), any two (b=-4.6, 95% CI -5.0 to -4.2), any three (b=-6.3, 95% CI -6.8 to -5.9) and all four (b=-7.8, 95% CI -9.0 to -6.6) behavioural risk factors was associated with lower social participation. The association between functional disability and social participation was modified by the presence of behavioural risk factors with the lowest social participation observed for adults with disability and all four behavioural risk factors (b=-4.3, 95% CI -7.5 to -1.2). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with functional disabilities and behavioural risk factors are more likely to experience restrictions in social participation. Public health interventions that encourage healthy lifestyle behaviours may help mitigate the impact of functional disabilities on social participation in the ageing population.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".