Occupational therapists' contributions to fostering older adults' social participation: A scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction To promote active and healthy ageing, it is important to foster social participation. Although well positioned to do so, few community occupational therapists intervene to address social participation, and no review of promising and current practices is available. This study synthesised knowledge on community occupational therapy practices fostering older adults' social participation. Method A scoping review involved searches in eight databases using 49 keywords. Studies were selected by two reviewers and content-analysed following PRISMA guidelines. Results Of the 32 selected studies, most involved descriptive ( n = 11; 34%), randomised controlled trial ( n = 9; 28%) or quasi-experimental ( n = 7; 22%) designs, and were conducted mainly in the USA ( n = 8; 25%), Canada ( n = 6; 19%) and Sweden ( n = 6; 19%). Twenty promising practices combined multi-component interventions ( n = 11; 55%), or involved group ( n = 5; 25%) or individual ( n = 4; 20%) sessions. Promising practices improved participation in social activities ( n = 13; 65%), social interactions ( n = 6; 30%), self-rated health ( n = 6; 30%) and quality of life ( n = 6; 30%), and reduced health-care costs ( n = 4; 20%). Facing organisational and systemic barriers, current practices rarely incorporated these possibilities. Conclusion Efforts to foster older adults' social participation appear to be cost-effective but need to be further incorporated into practice. Research should engage community stakeholders in implementing these possibilities.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it