Enhancing well-being in later life: the interplay of mobility limitation, psychological adaptation, and assistive technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The experience of mobility limitations can compromise well-being in older adulthood. This study aimed to investigate the psychological mechanisms through which mobility limitations affect well-being and to evaluate how assistive technology might support these underlying processes among older adults. = 5,091), we conducted mediation analysis to determine if dispositional tenacity and flexibility in 2016 linked mobility limitations in 2015 to well-being in 2017. Moderation analysis evaluated whether assistive technology use in 2015 supported tenacity and flexibility in the subsequent year. In 2015, 693 (13.6%) and 685 (13.5%) older adults reported mobility limitations when going outside and getting around inside, respectively. Mobility limitations had negative direct and indirect associations with well-being through pathways of reduced dispositional tenacity and flexibility. In the context of going outside, assistive technology use mitigated the impact of mobility limitation and supported the dual processes of tenacity and flexibility. However, for getting around inside, assistive technology use was associated with reduced dispositional tenacity and flexibility and further exacerbated the negative impact of mobility limitation. This study highlights the psychological mechanisms that connect mobility limitations to well-being. Findings suggest that deploying tailored assistive technology may protect older adults' well-being by supporting their psychological adaptation to age-related challenges.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".