Effect of Age-Friendly Communities Action Plan on Trajectories of Older Canadians’ Depressive Symptoms Between 2018 and 2020: Multilevel Results From the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the COVID-19 pandemic impacted mental health, this longitudinal study examined the effect of age-friendly communities (AFC) action plan on older adults' depressive symptoms. Using the CLSA, the CLSA COVID-19 Questionnaire study, survey of Canadian municipalities, and the census, the depressive symptoms trajectories were modeled with multilevel multinomial regressions. Most respondents (66.1%) had non-depressed trajectories, 28.1% experienced a moderate increase in depressive symptoms, and 5.8% had a depressed trajectory. AFC action plans did not have a protective effect on these trajectories. Being a female, greater loneliness, lower income, ≥2 chronic conditions, inferior social participation, weaker sense of belonging, COVID-19 infection, and pandemic stressors predicted a depressed trajectory. Neighborhood's deprivation had a weak protective effect on the declining trajectory. Although AFC action plans provided no benefits during the pandemic, volunteers facilitating resource access and social interactions could limit any increase in depressive symptoms.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".