The meaning of sedentary behavior among older adults: a phenomenological hermeneutic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A sedentary lifestyle has implications for health and well-being. For healthy ageing, it is recommended to interrupt prolonged sitting; however, little is known about the meaning of sedentary behavior among older adults. The aim of this study was to understand the meaning of sedentary behavior among older adults with initial support from community care. METHODS: A phenomenological hermeneutics approach was used, and individual interviews were conducted with sixteen older adults aged 70 to 97 years, by phone and face to face. The older adults lived in ordinary housing in southern Sweden and received initial support from community care. RESULTS: The interviews yielded three key themes: Being sedentary is an unnatural part of life, having an ageing body means unwanted frailty, and having a sedentary lifestyle is based on conscious choices. CONCLUSION: Being sedentary means having a lack of physical activity and social interactions, resulting in wanting to be more physically active than sometimes possible. Clinical practitioners should bear in mind that becoming more sedentary is inevitable with an ageing body, but that older adults may have an innate desire to be as physically active as possible. A lifelong exposure to physical activity, the possibility of well-being found in sedentary activities and the impact of social networks should not be overlooked when creating clinical interventions to break unhealthy sedentary behavior among older adults. To increase the understanding of sedentary behavior among older adults, future research could focus on the impact of physical impairment on sedentary behavior and the relationship between sedentary behavior and physical activity throughout life.
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 | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".