The role of positive psychological wellbeing in walking speed differences among married and unmarried English older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Walking speed has been identified as an important indicator of functional independence and survival among older adults, with marital status being related to walking speed differences. We explored explanatory factors, with a focus on positive psychological wellbeing, in walking speed differences between married and non-married individuals in later life. Methods: We used wave 8 (2016/17) cross-sectional data from adults aged 60–79 years who participated in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (n = 3,743). An Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition was used to compute walking speed differences between married and unmarried individuals, and the portion of those differences that could be explained by characteristic differences in those groups, particularly wellbeing. Results: Overall, married individuals had walking speeds that were 0.073 m/s (95% confidence interval: 0.055–0.092 m/s) faster than their unmarried counterparts. This was primarily driven by differences between the married and separated/divorced group, and the widowed group. Included covariates explained roughly 89% of the overall walking speed difference. Positive psychological wellbeing consistently explained a significant portion of walking speed differences, ranging between 7% to 18% across comparisons. Conclusion: Although wealth has been previously found to partially explain walking speed differences by marital status, we found that positive psychological wellbeing also demonstrated pertinence to these differences.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".