Relationship Between Activity, Environment and Life Satisfaction in Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine the relationships between activities, environment and life satisfaction of older adults who were registered to a family life centre. Materials and Methods: Fifty-five olderadult aged sixty years and over were participated to the study. Activity Analysis Questionnaire was used which was developed by the researchers. The performance and the satisfaction from the given activities was assessed by Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Craig Hospital Inventory of Environmental Factors was used to analyze the problems that older-adults encountered in their environment; the Life satisfaction was assessed with Life Satisfaction Scale. Results: No significant relationship between participants’ life satisfaction scores and activity participant levels were found (p>0.05). However, significant correlation between level of activity importance and life satisfaction scores were found. The higher levels of life satisfaction were reported by older adults who were independent in self-care activities, participate in cultural activities and watch television in the evening (p<0.05). Political problems were most common in enviromental problems, as negative attitudes were least. Significant correlation were found between life satisfaction scores and total scores of physical enviroment and services. conclusion: Participation to the meaningful activities for older adults may effect their life satisfaction. This study reveals requirement of the assessment activities which older adults did also with the activity importance for them. However, older adults’ life satisfaction could be increased with occupational therapy assessments and interventions according to enviromental factors that may impact activities
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".