Health Promotion and Disease Prevention for Older Adults Intervention Themes and Strategies Used in Québec Local Community Health Centres and Seniors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Despite the considerable potential of disease prevention and health promotion (DPHP) among older adults, extant data suggest that this field of intervention is still underdeveloped. To shed further light on this issue, this paper presents the results of an inventory of DPHP interventions for older adults conducted in local community health centres (CLSCs) and seniors ’ day centres in the province of Québec. Methods: All CLSCs (N=147) and day centres (N=124) were invited to participate (response rates: 74 % and 79%). Data were collected through telephone interviews. Interventions were coded according to type of intervention strategies and target themes. Results: Awareness-raising and health education strategies emerged as the most frequently-cited type of intervention strategies, reported by 77 % of CLSCs and 95 % of day centres, respectively. The two themes reported by a majority of CLSCs were physical health (87%) and community issues (58%). Lifestyle habits (92%) and social issues (92%) were the two most frequently-cited themes in day centres. Discussion: DPHP for older adults is substantially well developed in terms of intervention
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".