Abstract No: 354 Comparison of Biopsychosocial Health of Retired Women and Elderly Homemakers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study is undertaken to understand and compare the biopsychosocial health of retirees and homemakers in older Indian women. Relevance: Ageing is inevitable but can have a different impact on different people. It is also known that adult social experiences in terms of work and community life, shape their health in later life. Being a housewife or a working professional provides different life experiences to a person. These experiences can have apparent health benefits or drawbacks that extend and/or persist at later stages of life. Participants: 42 elderly homemakers and 42 retired women aged ≥ 60 years. Methods: The participants were assessed on Montreal Cognition Assessment (MoCA) Scale for cognition and Fullerton Functional Fitness Test for physical fitness, Depression Anxiety Stress (DASS) Scale-21 and World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL)-BREF for Quality of Life, for the evaluation of Biological, Psychological, and Social health respectively. Analysis: All the outcome measures for the two groups were compared using an Independent t-test on SPSS version 16 software. Results: Analysis revealed that retirees scored significantly better than homemakers on MoCA, DASS and WHOQOL-BREF scales. Further scores on all the subtests of Fullerton Functional Fitness Test showed no significant difference except two, i.e., Chair sit & reach and 8-ft Up and Go Test. Conclusion: The retirees were significantly better than the homemakers in terms of physical mobility, power, speed, agility, dynamic balance, lower body flexibility, lower levels of depression, anxiety, and stress levels, and better psycho-social relationships and environmental adjustment. Implications: A thorough understanding of the health differences between retirees and homemakers across the biological, psychological, and social domains can help tailor health programs to meet the specific needs of these older women.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".