Association between life satisfaction and health behaviours among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Life satisfaction is a key indicator of successful ageing and reflects well-being. There is evidence of the association between life satisfaction and health behaviours among older adults. Therefore, this systematic review and meta-analysis protocol seeks to determine the strength and direction of the association between life satisfaction and health behaviours among older adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. We will search the electronic databases (MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL and Global Health) from inception to date. Only observational studies that described the association between life satisfaction and health behaviours-smoking, alcohol drinking, physical activity, diet/nutrition and sleep-will be included. Two independent reviewers will conduct screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment of the articles. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools for cohort and analytical cross-sectional studies. Studies will be included in the meta-analysis if they report zero-order associations between life satisfaction and health behaviours; otherwise, a narrative synthesis will be presented. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethics approval, as it involves analysing secondary data from published studies. The completed review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO (CRD42023441386).
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 | 0.104 | 0.132 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.082 | 0.011 |
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".