Perceptions and experiences of functional mobility for community‐dwelling older people: A focused ethnography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobility challenges may indicate functional decline and are a relevant problem faced by older people. An individual's perception of mobility is affected and moderated by several factors and varies significantly from one community to another. Providing an improved understanding of how older people perceive and experience mobility is a step towards better preparing nurses for roles they are increasingly expected to play. PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to investigate perceptions and experiences of mobility in a group of Brazilian community-dwelling older people living with mobility challenges. METHOD: Data were generated between June and October 2018 through in-depth interviews, socio-demographic surveys and field notes. Purposive sampling strategies were used to recruit 23 Brazilian older people to participate in this focused ethnographic study. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. FINDINGS: Perceptions of Brazilian community-dwelling older people living with mobility challenges were culturally learned and influenced by the social, physical and health environments. Participants' previous experiences with mobility had significant implications on values they attributed to mobility challenges. In addition, older people's experiences with mobility challenges were an integral part of sense of self and strongly related to contextual factors. CONCLUSIONS: This study contributes new information to the field of inquiry on mobility of older people as it focuses on the perceptions of a specific age group and culture and attends to the interrelationships between health conditions and contextual factors affecting the mobility of older people. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study's particular contributions to the nursing discipline are related to improving care by revealing the significance of the context of mobility in which nursing actions are applied.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".