MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4297920933 · doi:10.2196/37617

The Impact of a Naturally Occurring Retirement Community Supportive Services Program on Older Adult Participants’ Social Networks: Semistructured Interview Study

2022· article· en· W4297920933 sur OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Christine Marie Mills, Simone Parniak, Carri Hand, Colleen McGrath, Debbie Laliberté Rudman, Cassandra Chislett, Mariah Giberson, Lauren White, Vincent DePaul, Catherine Donnelly

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Aging · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueHealth disparities and outcomes
Établissements canadiensWestern UniversityQueen's University
Organismes subventionnairesOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care
Mots-clésThematic analysisRetirement communityGerontologyPsychologySupportive housingFeelingQualitative researchAging in placeSocial supportMental healthCoping (psychology)ApartmentSocial psychologyMedicineClinical psychologySociologyPsychiatry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Most older adults want to age in place, in their homes and communities. However, this can be challenging for many, frequently owing to lack of supports that allow for aging in place. Naturally occurring retirement community supportive services programs (NORC-SSPs) offer an approach to help older adults age in place. Although qualitative studies have examined the experiences of NORC-SSP participants, little is known about how participation in NORC-SSP programming affects participants' social networks. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the experiences of 13 NORC-SSP residents who participated in Oasis Senior Supportive Living (Oasis) and how participating in NORC-SSP programming, specifically based on the Oasis model, influenced their social networks. METHODS: Participants were recruited, using convenience sampling, from 4 naturally occurring retirement communities (NORCs) in Ontario, Canada. All participants (13/13, 100%) had participated in Oasis programming. Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted with participants. Social network theory informed the interview guide and thematic analysis. RESULTS: In total, 13 participants (n=12, 92% women and n=1, 8% men) were interviewed. These participants were from 4 different NORCs where Oasis had been implemented, comprising 2 midrise apartment buildings, 1 low-rise apartment building, and 1 mobile home community. Overall, 3 main themes were identified from the interviews with Oasis participants: expansion and deepening of social networks, Oasis activities (something to do, someone to do it with), and self-reported impact of Oasis on mental health and well-being (feeling and coping with life better). Participants noted that Oasis provided them with opportunities to meet new people and broaden their social networks, both within and outside their NORCs. They also indicated that Oasis provided them with meaningful ways to spend their time, including opportunities to socialize and try new activities. Participants stated that participating in Oasis helped to alleviate loneliness and improved their quality of life. They noted that Oasis provided them with a reason to get up in the morning. However, the experiences described by participants may not be reflective of all Oasis members. Those who had positive experiences may have been more likely to agree to be interviewed. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the participants' interviews, Oasis is an effective aging-in-place model that has been successfully implemented in low-rise apartment buildings, midrise apartment buildings, and mobile home communities. Participating in Oasis allowed participants to expand their social networks and improve their mental health and well-being. Therefore, NORCs may offer an ideal opportunity to build strong communities that provide deep, meaningful social connections that expand social networks. NORC-SSPs, such as Oasis, can support healthy aging and allow older adults to age in place.

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 distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,220
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,997

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,057
Tête enseignante GPT0,438
Écart entre enseignants0,382 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations8
Publié2022
Routes d'admission4
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR AgingMême sujetHealth disparities and outcomesTravaux en français237 207