MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161535449 · doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1824-0

Importance of proximity to resources, social support, transportation and neighborhood security for mobility and social participation in older adults: results from a scoping study

2015· review· en· W2161535449 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mélanie Levasseur, Mélissa Généreux, Jean-François Bruneau, Alain Vanasse, Éric Chabot, Claude Beaulac, Marie-Michèle Bédard

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicOlder Adults Driving Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du QuébecCanadian Association of Occupational TherapistsPolytechnique MontréalPublic Health Agency of CanadaHealth and Social Services Centre University Institute of Geriatrics of SherbrookeCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsRecreationPublic healthBiostatisticsSocial supportLicensePublic transportSocial securityEnvironmental healthMedicineGerontologyPsychologyTransport engineeringComputer scienceSocial psychologyPolitical scienceNursingEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Since mobility and social participation are key determinants of health and quality of life, it is important to identify factors associated with them. Although several investigations have been conducted on the neighborhood environment, mobility and social participation, there is no clear integration of the results. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding regarding how the neighborhood environment is associated with mobility and social participation in older adults. METHODS: A rigorous methodological scoping study framework was used to search nine databases from different fields with fifty-one keywords. Data were exhaustively analyzed, organized and synthesized according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) by two research assistants following PRISMA guidelines, and results were validated with knowledge users. RESULTS: The majority of the 50 selected articles report results of cross-sectional studies (29; 58%), mainly conducted in the US (24; 48%) or Canada (15; 30%). Studies mostly focused on neighborhood environment associations with mobility (39; 78%), social participation (19; 38%), and occasionally both (11; 22%). Neighborhood attributes considered were mainly 'Pro ducts and technology' (43; 86) and 'Services, systems and policies' (37; 74%), but also 'Natural and human-made changes' (27; 54%) and 'Support and relationships' (21; 42%). Mobility and social participation were both positively associated with Proximity to resources and recreational facilities, Social support, Having a car or driver's license, Public transportation and Neighborhood security, and negatively associated with Poor user-friendliness of the walking environment and Neighborhood insecurity. Attributes of the neighborhood environment not covered by previous research on mobility and social participation mainly concerned 'Attitudes', and 'Services, systems and policies'. CONCLUSION: Results from this comprehensive synthesis of empirical studies on associations of the neighborhood environment with mobility and social participation will ultimately support best practices, decisions and the development of innovative inclusive public health interventions including clear guidelines for the creation of age-supportive environments. To foster mobility and social participation, these interventions must consider Proximity to resources and to recreational facilities, Social support, Transportation, Neighborhood security and User-friendliness of the walking environment. Future studies should include both mobility and social participation, and investigate how they are associated with 'Attitudes', and 'Services, systems and policies' in older adults, including disadvantaged older adults.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.098
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.098
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.006
Bibliometrics0.0220.022
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.164
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations424
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicOlder Adults Driving StudiesFrench-language works237,207