The association between sense of coherence and health outcomes among community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: The objective of this study was to systematically review evidence of the association between the sense of coherence (SOC) and health outcomes in community-dwelling older adults. Methods: Six databases, including PubMed, Web of Sciences, Scopus, CINAHL Plus with full text (EBSCO), OVID, and the Cochrane Library, were thoroughly searched. The checklist developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used to assess the quality of the relevant studies. Results: Twenty-nine studies were included in this review. Generally, higher SOC levels are associated with better physical health (less symptom reporting, better functional status, less disability, better daily activity ability, less pain, better sleep quality, and better oral health) and better psychological health (less perceived stress, more positive self-perception of aging, less depression, and less posttraumatic stress reaction) in older adults. Higher SOC levels are also correlated with greater preventive/self-management behaviors ability, subjective well-being, adjustment to aging later in life, cumulative survival, quality of life, life satisfaction, and self-perceived health. Higher SOC levels are a vital mediators or moderators of health in older adults. Conclusions: The SOC is a protective factor for the health of community-dwelling older adults. Interventions targeting improvement in SOC levels should be developed and implemented to facilitate active aging in older adults.
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 | 0.006 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".