MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2472115056 · doi:10.3233/978-1-61499-658-3-954

e-Health Interventions for Healthy Aging: A Systematic Review Protocol

2016· review· en· W2472115056 on OpenAlexaff
Marie‐Pierre Gagnon, Idrissa Beogo

Bibliographic record

VenueStudies in health technology and informatics · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionProtocol (science)Health careQuality of life (healthcare)Systematic reviewInclusion (mineral)PsychologyAnxietyMedicineGerontologyMEDLINEAlternative medicineNursingPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e-Health interventions could contribute to healthy aging (HA) but their effectiveness has not been synthesised. This study aims to systematically review the effectiveness of e-health interventions for supporting HA. We will perform standardized searches to identify experimental and quasi-experimental studies evaluating the effectiveness of e-health interventions for HA. Outcomes of interest are: wellbeing, quality of life, activities of daily living, leisure activities, knowledge, evaluation of care, social support, skill acquisition and healthy behaviours. We will also consider adverse effects such as social isolation, anxiety, and burden on informal caregivers. Two reviewers will independently assess studies for inclusion and extract data using a standardised tool. We will calculate effect sizes related to e-health interventions. If not possible, we will present the findings in a narrative form. This systematic review will provide unique knowledge on the effectiveness of e-health interventions for supporting HA.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.535
Teacher spread0.384 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStudies in health technology and informaticsSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207