The Contribution of Frailty to Participation of Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Participation, which is involvement in life situations, is an important indicator of human health and well-being of older adults. Frailty is known to be related to difficulties in activities of daily living (ADL) but the association with participation restriction has not been sufficiently researched. Therefore, we aimed to (1) to assess the correlations between frailty, ADL, and participation; and (2) to identify the contribution of frailty to explaining the participation restriction of older adults. Methods: A cross-sectional study included home visits to community-dwelling older adults aged 75 and older. The Reintegration to Normal Living Index (RNL-I) assessed participation, PRISMA-7 assessed frailty, and the Functional Independence Measure and IADL questionnaire assessed the basic and instrumental ADL. Cognition, which may explain participation, was also assessed (The Montreal Cognitive Assessment) and demographic information was collected. Results: Older adults (N = 121, 60 women), aged 75 to 91 years (mean (SD)—79.6 (3.1)), were included. Older adults demonstrated full to restricted participation (RNL-I-mean (SD)—78.2 (18.0)/100). Frailty was identified in 39 (32%) older adults (mean (SD) PRISMA-7—2.9 (1.4)/7points). A negative moderate significant correlation was found between participation and frailty (r = −0.634, p < 0.001). The variance of participation was significantly explained by frailty, 31.5%, and basic ADL, 5.6% (after controlling for age and cognition); the total model explained 44.6% (F = 23.29, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Frailty is significantly associated with participation restriction. Since participation has many health benefits, understanding which factors are associated to participation is central to developing interventions for older adults. These findings may help health professionals in the future develop interventions for maintaining and promoting the participation of older adults.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".