MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303628995 · doi:10.3390/disabilities2040041

Describing the Function, Disability, and Health of Adults and Older Adults during the Early Coronavirus Restrictions in 2019: An Online Survey

2022· article· en· W4303628995 on OpenAlexaff
Pegah Derakhshan, William C. Miller, Jaimie Borisoff, Elham Esfandiari, Tal Jarus, Somayyeh Mohammadi, Isabelle Rash, Brodie M. Sakakibara, Julia Schmidt, Gordon Tao, Noah Tregobov, W. Ben Mortenson

Bibliographic record

VenueDisabilities · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsInternational Collaboration On Repair DiscoveriesBritish Columbia Institute of TechnologyGF Strong Rehabilitation CentreUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoredomAnxietyGerontologyPopulationDepression (economics)PsychologyMedicineYoung adultPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The restrictions in 2019 due to Coronavirus impacted Canadians’ daily living, especially those at higher risk of compromised health conditions. This study aimed to describe the physical, psychological, and social well-being of adults with disabilities, and older adults from May to June 2020. Participants from the group of community-dwelling adults (≥19 years of age), who communicated in English, lived in British Columbia, and had Internet access via a computer, tablet, or smartphone with special focus on populations who had stroke, spinal cord injury and other disabilities were included. For measurement outcomes, an online survey was used to administer standardized measures of level of participation, mobility, anxiety and depression, boredom, resilience, technology readiness, social support, and social networks. Seventy-two participants were recruited, with a mean age (SD) of 61.2 (13.8). This study was comprised of two groups: the adult group consisted of individuals with disabilities under the age of 65 (48.6%) and the older adult group consisted of individuals over the age of 65 with and without self-identified disability (51.4%). There was no significant difference in the proportion of participation restriction between adult (83%) and older adult’ (81%) groups (p = 0.69). In the study population, 27.8% and 16.7% of participants exceeded the anxiety and depression cut-off scores, respectively. Boredom was experienced by 76.4% of participants. Participants’ mean (SD) resilience and life space scores were 72.4 (14.0) and 51.9 (24.0), respectively. The older adults (≥65 years) showed significantly lower depression (p = 0.012) and better resilience (p = 0.038), social support (p = 0.043), and social network (p = 0.021) than the younger adults. Issues with anxiety, boredom, participation, and life space activity were identified in both study groups. This information may provide supporting evidence when creating policies to mitigate existent health and social inequities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDisabilitiesSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207