HEALTH-SEEKING BEHAVIOR OF COMMUNITY-LIVING OLDER ADULTS RELATES TO AWARENESS OF COMMUNITY SERVICES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research has shown that older adults desire to age in their homes. To age at home safely and comfortably, there are a variety and number of community support services available, however, previous studies show older adults do not utilize these services fully. There is a need for clarity about this gap between availability and use. Understanding the construct of health-seeking behaviour by community-living older adults may provide insights into this identified gap. Therefore, the objective was to determine whether health-seeking behaviour in community-living older adults is related to: dimensions of wellness; awareness of community support services; living as an older man or woman; or being younger or older than 75 years. A cross-sectional study design involving 99 community-living older adults (≥ 65 years, without impaired executive function) employed validated outcome measures of physical function, fear of falling, personal resilience, social well-being, spiritual well-being, awareness of community support services, and health-seeking behaviour. Relationships were calculated using multiple linear regression. Health-seeking behaviour was positively correlated (R= 0.40, p<.01) with awareness of community support services. Health-seeking behaviour was not correlated with dimensions of wellness (i.e., physical function, fall risk, personal resilience, spiritual wellbeing, or social wellbeing). No difference between age groups (U=986.5, n1=68, n2=31, p=0.61) nor sex (U=931.5, n1=66, n2=33, p=0.24) was found for health-seeking behaviour. The findings indicate that awareness of community support services positively influenced health-seeking behaviour. The healthcare system should ensure equitable, accessible, age-friendly, and relevant information and distribution strategies to increase awareness of older adults for local supportive services.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".