FAMILY ARRANGEMENT, SOCIAL SUPPORT AND FRAILTY AMONG COMMUNITY-DWELLING OLDER ADULTS: A MIXED METHODS LONGITUDINAL STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Objective to analyze, over time, the constitution of the older adults' family arrangements and their relationship with social support, frailty, quality of life and cognition; in addition to verifying existing tensions in the family context from the perspective of these subjects. Method a longitudinal study, using mixed methods and concomitant triangulation. A sociodemographic interview, the Edmonton Frailty Scale, WHOQOL-BREF and OLD, The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, Genogram and Ecomap were applied. The quantitative data used the Wilcoxon and Mann Whitney comparison test; and those with a qualitative approach were treated according to Bardin's content analysis, with dialectical materialism as a theoretical framework. Results most of the 84 aged people in the study period (2012/2016-2019) were over 70 years old and female (83.3%). Frailty and cognition did not present a statistically significant relationship with the type of family arrangement. Aged people who lived alone had a worse quality of life in the physical (p=0.044) and psychological (p=0.031) domains. Older adults who lived with grandchildren showed worsening in the social relationship domain (p=0.047) and improvement in the death and dying domain (p<0.001). Three categories and nine subcategories were found, which highlighted the importance of interdependent and supportive relationships in the family. Data integration showed that the family size arrangement and the types of its members do not determine the existence of support, but the bonds formed with family and community. Conclusion frailty and cognition presented no statistical difference with the type of family arrangement, although this relationship was found in some quality of life domains.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".