MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403440773 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1404869

Social isolation and loneliness prevention among rural older adults aging-in-place: a needs assessment

2024· article· en· W4403440773 on OpenAlexaff
Jodi L Southerland, Shimin Zheng, Kayla Dodson, Erin Mauck, Juanita-Dawne Bacsu, Monique J. Brown, Jeremy Holloway, Steffi Kim, Ayse Malatyali, Matthew Lee Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessSocial isolationGerontologyUCLA Loneliness ScaleScale (ratio)MedicineRural areaLogistic regressionSocial supportAging in placeEnvironmental healthPsychologyDemographyGeographyPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The adverse effects of social isolation and loneliness (SI/L) have been documented among older adults in rural communities and contribute to poor health outcomes, premature disability and mortality, and increased burden on the healthcare system. The identification of factors contributing to SI/L among older adults can build the foundation for rural policymakers and leaders to allocate resources and develop tailored strategies more efficiently. The purpose of this article is to describe findings from a needs assessment designed to understand local factors that contribute to SI/L among rural older adults in a county in Northeast Tennessee. Findings from the needs assessment will be used by local stakeholders to develop strategies to promote age-friendly initiatives. Methods Eighty-two older adults [ages 62 to 74 years (59%); non-Hispanic white (95%); female (71%)] from three senior apartment complexes in a Northeast Tennessee county completed an 87-item needs assessment survey. The evaluation of social isolation utilized Lubben’s 6-item Social Network Scale, while loneliness was assessed using the 3-item UCLA Loneliness Scale. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify predictors of SI/L. Given the limited sample size, statistical significance was considered at p < 0.10. Results The prevalence of social isolation and loneliness was 42% and 37%, respectively. Residing in the county <5 years [Adjusted OR (AOR): 3.35; 95% CI: 1.04–10.81; p = 0.04] and reporting resource-related barriers to aging-in-place (AOR: 6.56; 95% CI: 2.00–21.57; p = 0.004) were associated with increases in the odds of social isolation; whereas interest in intergenerational activities decreased the odds of social isolation (AOR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.05–0.69; p = 0.01). Boredom (AOR: 4.06; 95% CI: 1.63–12.11; p = 0.01) and limited knowledge about community services (AOR: 4.61; 95% CI: 1.42–15.02; p = 0.01) quadrupled the odds of loneliness. Similarly, older adults who were frail (AOR: 2.69; 95% CI: 0.88–8.17; p = 0.08) and who rated their community livability as low (AOR: 3.35; 95% CI: 0.81–13.87; p = 0.09) were more likely to experience loneliness. Discussion This needs assessment provided important information about the individual and social drivers of SI/L among rural older adults in the community. Findings support the generation of localized data to support muti-partner efforts to design sustainable programs to address SI/L.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207