ArticleBMC geriatrics2026
Leisure activity patterns and health vulnerability among older adults in China: a nationwide analysis of urban-rural differences based on CHARLS data.
Article in BMC geriatrics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo systematically examine the associations between different leisure activity patterns and health vulnerability among older adults in China, and to explore the moderating effects of socioeconomic factors, with the aim of informing targeted interventions for healthy aging.
methodsData were derived from the 2018 China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study (CHARLS). Leisure activity patterns were identified using hierarchical cluster analysis. The associations between leisure patterns and health vulnerability were analyzed using an ordered probit model, with subgroup analyses conducted to assess heterogeneity by residence, education, and income.
resultsThree leisure patterns were identified: entertainment-oriented (50.23%), social-oriented (41.15%), and self-improvement-oriented (8.62%). Taking the social-oriented leisure pattern as the reference, both entertainment-oriented (β=-0.109, P < 0.01) and self-improvement-oriented (β=-0.185, P < 0.01) patterns significantly reduced health vulnerability. Robustness verification, including model replacement and variable adjustment, supported the reliability of the core conclusions. Heterogeneity analysis showed that entertainment-oriented (β=-0.320, P < 0.01) and self-improvement-oriented (β=-0.319, P < 0.01) patterns significantly reduced health vulnerability among older adults in urban and suburban areas, but showed a significant risk-increasing trend in rural areas (β = 0.317, 0.319; both P < 0.01). Among groups with middle school education or above, both patterns reduced health vulnerability (β=-0.074, -0.074; both P < 0.05), while in the illiterate group, participation in these two patterns significantly increased the risk of health vulnerability (β = 0.122, 0.121; both P < 0.01). Income level showed a gradient moderating effect: the protective effect was strongest in high-income groups (entertainment-oriented β=-0.228, self-improvement-oriented β=-0.230; both P < 0.01), weakened in middle-income groups (entertainment-oriented β=-0.131, self-improvement-oriented β=-0.135; both P < 0.05), and was not significant in low-income groups (entertainment-oriented β=-0.052, self-improvement-oriented β=-0.048; both P > 0.05).
conclusionParticipation in recreational and self-enhancing leisure activities is associated with reduced health vulnerability among Chinese older adults. However, these benefits are moderated by urban–rural context, education, and income. Differentiated intervention strategies should be formulated for older groups with different socioeconomic characteristics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.