Monitoring and Evaluation of Dementia-Friendly Neighborhoods Using a Walkshed Approach: Protocol for a Scoping Review (Preprint)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND The number of people in society living with dementia is growing. In Canada, most people who live with dementia live at home, often in a neighborhood setting. Neighborhood environments can be a source of independence, social engagement, and well-being. They can also contain barriers that limit physical activity, social engagement, and well-being. A dementia-friendly neighborhood includes assets that support persons living with dementia and their caregivers in multiple life domains, including those that support walking within the neighborhood environment. OBJECTIVE The objectives for this scoping review are twofold. First, focusing on walkshed analysis, we aim to extend scholarly understandings of methodological practices used in the monitoring and evaluation of dementia-friendly neighborhoods. Second, we aim to provide clear and practical guidance for those working in planning, design, and public health fields to assess the neighborhood context in support of evidence-based action to improve the lives of persons living with dementia. METHODS The study design follows Arksey and O’Malley’s scoping review framework and PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) guidelines. We will conduct a search of peer-reviewed studies in 6 electronic databases to identify the use of Geographic Information System analysis to measure the walkshed of persons living with dementia in a community setting. As age is a primary risk factor associated with dementia, we will also include studies that focus more broadly on community-dwelling older adults aged 65 years and older. Data will be extracted, analyzed, and represented according to 3 domains. This includes study details, walkshed analysis methods, and criteria and indicators used to measure dementia-friendly neighborhoods. RESULTS The results of the study and the submission of a manuscript for peer review are expected in June 2024. The results of the review are expected to contribute to an understanding of methods for monitoring and evaluating dementia-friendly neighborhoods. Expected findings will include a detailed breakdown of current parameters and routines used to conduct walkshed analysis. Findings will also convey criteria that can be operationalized in a Geographic Information System as indicators to assess barriers and facilitators to walking in a neighborhood setting. CONCLUSIONS As far as we are aware, the proposed scoping review will be the first to provide comprehensive methodological or technical guidance for conducting walkshed analysis specific to persons living with dementia. Both the scalability and objective nature of walkshed analysis are likely to be of direct interest to public health practitioners, planners, and allied professionals. Clearly documenting methods used in walkshed analysis can spur increased collaboration across these disciplines to enable an evidence-informed approach to improving neighborhood environments for persons living with dementia. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT PRR1-10.2196/50548
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 | 0,109 | 0,149 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,013 | 0,017 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,014 | 0,013 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,009 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,085 | 0,017 |
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 ».