Physical activity and psychological adjustment among retirees: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health-related behaviors may change after retirement and induce changes in the mental health. This systematic review aimed to investigate the nature of changes in physical activity and leisure activities, as well as the relationship between physical activity, leisure, and psychological adjustment among retirees. METHODS: Search of papers was done in three electronic databases of PubMed, ISI Web of Science, and Scopus without constraints on time, geographical regions, or languages in February 2022. The papers that had examined the relationship between physical activity and adjustment among retirees using observational design (cross-sectional or longitudinal) were included in the present study. To evaluate the methodological quality of cross-sectional studies, Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist, and for longitudinal studies, Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) were used. RESULTS: The search results identified 1458 records. Twenty-six papers were included in this review based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The findings of most of these studies indicated a significant positive correlation between physical activity, leisure, and psychological adjustment in retirees. Retirees were mostly engaged in passive leisure activities such as reading, watching TV and movies, and less engaged in physical activities, sport, or physical exercise. General organized assessment of the total physical activity among retirees was not possible. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the study findings, it can be stated that there is a positive correlation between physical activity, leisure, and the retirees' adjustment. Usage of the same and valid measurement method specific to old age and retirement period can be useful in more precise assessment of physical activity and its association with adjustment among retirees.
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 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".