The Associations between Meeting 24-Hour Movement Guidelines (24-HMG) and Self-Rated Physical and Mental Health in Older Adults—Cross Sectional Evidence from China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study determined the prevalence of older adults (aged 60-80 years) meeting the Canadian 24-HMG alone and in combination, and their association with the self-rated physical health and mental health of older adults. METHODS: Participants were drawn from 4134 older adults aged 60-80 years (age, 67.37 ± 0.08 years; 46.87% male) from the China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS) 2015 database. Mental health and physical health scores were obtained based on self-rated mental health questionnaires and physical health of older adults. The criteria for meeting the 24-HMG were: physical activity time ≥ 150 min/week, sedentary time ≤ 480 min/day, screen time ≤ 180 min/day, sleep time 7-9 h (60-64 years) and sleep time 7-8 h (65 years and above). Logistic regression models were used to examine the association between meeting the 24-HMG guidelines number and category and older adults' self-rated mental and physical health. RESULTS: The proportion of older people meeting three of the 24-HMG guidelines was 1.16%, the proportion meeting two guidelines was 38.19% and the proportion meeting one guideline was 49.14%. The number of people meeting 24-HMG was closely related to the self-rated physical health and mental health of older people. The category meeting 24-HMG was closely related to the self-rated physical health and mental health of older people. CONCLUSIONS: Meeting more guidelines in the 24-HMG was strongly associated with older people's self-rated mental health and physical health. However, only a small proportion of older people met all the recommendations, highlighting the need to promote and support adherence to these movement behaviours.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".