MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406219415 · doi:10.1002/alz.089186

“My Wife and I Invariably Go Together”: A Mixed Methods Analysis of Physical Activity and its Influences on Older Adult Dyads

2024· article· en· W4406219415 on OpenAlexaff
J K Wales, Calum A. Hamilton, Louis McCarthy, Sayeh Bayat, Gro Gujord Tangen, Neil Ireson, Vitaveska Lanfranchi, Nicolas Farina, Ben Hicks, Ríona Mc Ardle

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicTextile materials and evaluations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersEconomic and Social Research CouncilBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council
KeywordsWifePsychologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyTheologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Physical activity (PA) is an imperative factor to healthy cognitive and functional ageing and may act as a protective factor against cognitive decline. Evidence suggests that as we age, PA declines, leaving a large proportion of older adults (OAs) ‘underactive’ and ‘unprotected’. Socialisation/social support is considered a beneficial influence on PA in OAs. It is unclear whether dyadic (e.g. spousal) influences impact PA in healthy ageing, and how this might impact digital activity monitoring or intervention development to support prevention of cognitive decline. This research aims to quantify volume and types of PA and explore influential factors for PA participation in OAs. Method Participants were recruited via the ActivDyad study, where they wore a lumbar‐based‐accelerometer (AX6, Axivity) for 7 days, and completed a 7‐day activity diary. PA (i.e. daily steps) was derived from accelerometers using validated algorithms. Qualitative content analysis of the diaries was adopted for contextual understanding of the types and influences of PA. The Theoretical Domains Framework was utilised to identify common facilitators/barriers of PA in OAs. Result 21 dyads (42 OAs) participated in the study; 10 dyads were included in preliminary analysis (mean age (mean±SD): 68.6±4.8; 100% heterosexual & married; mean relationship time: 45±10 years; 80% retired). Participants carried out an average of 15,680 daily steps (range: 7,243‐22,668), and indicated their most frequent PA as: shopping, gardening, housekeeping, and recreational walks (Table 1). Participants identified potential facilitators (Table 2) and barriers (Table 3) for partaking in PA. Social influence (e.g. partner) was identified as most influential; 75% of participants mentioned this as a facilitator for PA. Environmental context, particularly weather conditions, were frequently discussed as both a facilitator (50%) and barrier (45%) to PA. Conclusion Results suggest that dyadic interactions are a key facilitator of PA in OAs. Weather appears to have a bi‐conditional influence, promoting and/or discouraging PA; this may impact activity monitoring during adverse weather conditions (e.g. lower steps). Adherence may be higher in group PA interventions, and outdoor PA should be promoted in suitable weather. Analysis of the full sample will inform studies focusing activity monitoring and intervention development for dementia‐carer dyads.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicTextile materials and evaluationsFrench-language works237,207