Naturally Occurring Retirement Communities: Scoping Review (Preprint)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND As Canada’s population ages, there is a need to explore community-based solutions to support older adults. Naturally occurring retirement communities (NORCs), defined in 1986 as buildings or areas not specifically designed for, but which attract, older adults and associated NORC supportive service programs (NORC-SSPs) have been described as potential resources to support aging in place. Though the body of literature on NORCs has been growing since the 1980s, no synthesis of this work has been conducted to date. OBJECTIVE The goal of this scoping review is to highlight the current state of NORC literature to inform future research and offer a summarized description of NORCs and how they have supported, and can support, older adults to age in place. METHODS Using a published framework, a scoping review was conducted by searching 13 databases from earliest date of coverage to January 2022. We included English peer- and non–peer-reviewed scholarly journal publications that described, critiqued, reflected on, or researched NORCs. Aging-in-place literature with little to no mention of NORCs was excluded, as were studies that recruited participants from NORCs but did not connect findings to the setting. A qualitative content analysis of the literature was conducted, guided by a conceptual framework, to examine the promise of NORC programs to promote aging in place. RESULTS From 787 publications, we included 64 (8.1%) articles. All publications were North American, and nearly half used a descriptive research approach (31/64, 48%). A little more than half provided a specific definition of a NORC (33/64, 52%); of these, 13 (39%) used the 1986 definition; yet, there were discrepancies in the defined proportions of older adults that constitute a NORC (eg, 40% or 50%). Of the 64 articles, 6 (9%) described processes for identifying NORCs and 39 (61%) specifically described NORC-SSPs and included both external partnerships with organizations for service delivery (33/39, 85%) and internal resources such as staff, volunteers, or neighbors. Identified key components of a NORC-SSP included activities fostering social relationships (25/64, 39%) and access to resources and services (26/64, 41%). Sustainability and funding of NORC-SSPs were described (27/64, 42%), particularly as challenges to success. Initial outcomes, including self-efficacy (6/64, 9%) and increased access to social and health supports (14/64, 22%) were cited; however, long-term outcomes were lacking. CONCLUSIONS This review synthesizes the NORC literature to date and demonstrates that NORC-SSPs have potential as an alternative model of supporting aging in place. Longitudinal research exploring the impacts of both NORCs and NORC-SSPs on older adult health and well-being is recommended. Future research should also explore ways to improve the sustainability of NORC-SSPs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,018 | 0,093 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,016 | 0,023 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,014 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».