Exploring the use of the Conical Model of Theoretical Framework for Mobility in Older adults in research and/or practice: A scoping review of literature
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective: This scoping review aims to map and describe the available studies that have used the Conical Model of Theoretical Framework for Mobility in older adults in policy development, clinical practice, and/or research. Introduction: Mobility and the ability for movement is essential for healthy aging as it forms a basis for meaningful social participation. However, older adults often face greater susceptibility to mobility limitations, such as performance deficits in walking, which puts them at higher risk of disability, falls, hospitalization, mortality, and poor quality of life. In addition to the expensive healthcare costs resulting from this increased risk, these limitations emphasize the growing need to explore the complexity associated with mobility. There are numerous definitions associated with mobility. The one followed in this scoping review is “the ability to move oneself (e.g., by walking, by using assistive devices, or by using transportation) within community environments that expand from one’s home, to the neighbourhood, and to regions beyond” (reference). The Conical Model of Theoretical Framework for Mobility in Older Adults, by Webber et al., stipulates that multifaceted factors, such as cognitive, environmental, financial, personal, physical, physiological, and social, may explain the complexity associated with mobility. When published, the framework is intended to drive interdisciplinary analysis of mobility from various perspectives and motivate new research directions while enhancing diagnostic and treatment practices in the clinical setting. However, the use of this model in policy development, clinical, and research practice has not been explored since its formation. Therefore, examining the use of this framework in clinical research and policies will be vital to highlighting its practicality and determining its ability to promote interdisciplinarity between professions to further explore the complexity of mobility. Inclusion criteria: The conical model was organized into (a) articles that use the model as their theoretical framework; (b) articles that tested the model using a data set; c) and articles that expanded the model. Exclusion criteria: Articles that cited the model in the introduction or discussion section without explicitly stating that the model informed their study or guided some aspect of their study will be excluded. Methods: This scoping review considers all research studies, grey literature, and mixed methods studies to analyze the mobility of older adults within and beyond their homes into the community (Webber et al. 2010). With consultation from a health science librarian, the preliminary search terms helped develop a comprehensive search that will be adapted for CINAHL (EBSCO), MEDLINE (OVID), Scopus, Embase, and PSYCInfo. Searches for relevant sources of grey literature will include searches of Google Scholar, Proquest&Theses A&I, Theses Canada. The article list will be reviewed by the corresponding author of the Conical model, Dr. Webber.
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 | 0,083 | 0,200 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,004 | 0,006 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,031 | 0,027 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,008 |
| Communication savante | 0,013 | 0,016 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,006 | 0,005 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
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 ».