Describing the Function, Disability, and Health of Adults and Older Adults during the Early Coronavirus Restrictions in 2019: An Online Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".