The Role of Community Cohesion in Older Adults During the COVID-19 Epidemic: Cross-sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The community environment plays a vital role in the health of older adults. During the COVID-19 epidemic, older adults, who were considered the most impacted and most vulnerable social group, were confined to their homes during the implementation of management and control measures for the epidemic. In such situations, older adults may have to contend with a lack of resources and experience anxiety. Therefore, identifying the environmental factors that are beneficial for their physical and mental health is critical. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the association between community cohesion and the physical and mental health of older adults and to identify the related community services and environmental factors that may promote community cohesion. METHODS: This community-based cross-sectional study was designed during the COVID-19 epidemic. A multistage sampling method was applied to this study. A total of 2036 participants aged ≥60 years were sampled from 27 locations in China. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews. The neighborhood cohesion instrument consisting of scales on 3 dimensions was used to assess community cohesion. Self-efficacy and life satisfaction, cognitive function and depression, and community services and environmental factors were also measured using standard instruments. Statistical analyses were restricted to 99.07% (2017/2036) of the participants. Separate logistic regression analysis was conducted to assess the association among community cohesion and physical and mental health factors, related community services, and environmental factors among older adults. RESULTS: The results showed that high levels of community cohesion were associated with good self-perceived health status and life satisfaction (odds ratio [OR] 1.27, 95% CI 1.01-1.59 and OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.15-1.27, respectively) and high levels of self-efficacy and psychological resilience (OR 1.09, 95% CI 1.05-1.13 and OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.06, respectively). The length of stay in the community and the level of physical activity were positively associated with community cohesion scores, whereas the education level was negatively associated with community cohesion scores (P=.009). Community cohesion was also associated with low levels of depression and high levels of cognitive function. Community cohesion was significantly associated with community services and environmental factors on 4 dimensions. High levels of community cohesion were associated with transportation services and rehabilitation equipment rental services as well as high levels of satisfaction with community physicians' technical expertise and community waste disposal (OR 3.14, 95% CI 1.87-5.28; OR 3.62, 95% CI 2.38-5.52; OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.08-1.73; and OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.01-1.50, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Community cohesion was found to be associated with the physical and mental health of older adults. Our research suggests that enhancing community services and environmental resources may be an effective strategy to increase community cohesion during major infectious disease epidemics.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".