Community-Dwelling Older Adults Attending a Fire and Falls Health Promotion Program and the Experience of Social Isolation and Loneliness
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many health promotion programs are designed for older adults who live in the community. This research describes a health promotion program called "Remembering When" (a fire and fall prevention program). In 2020, a quality improvement project was developed to examine the effectiveness and impact of Remembering When among community-dwelling older adults. After analyzing the qualitative data collected for the project, an interesting observation of why older adults attended Remembering When emerged. Older adults might attend Remembering When because they experience social isolation and/or loneliness. The concepts of objective and subjective social isolation and loneliness were defined, and the implications of Remembering When around social isolation and loneliness were discussed. Secondary data analysis followed Braun and Clarke's (2006) thematic analysis steps. Four themes were generated: It is about me having choices, Joining the program as an old friend, We all need referrals , and I am housebound . Overall, 2 significant observations were made: (1) some older adults valued the opportunity to interact with Remembering When's team, which might help older adults decrease social isolation and loneliness, and (2) older adults needed more individualized programs to address their emotional and mental health and well-being needs.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it