Characteristics of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy for Older Adults Living in Residential Care: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The prevalence rates of depressive and anxiety disorders are high in residential aged care settings. Older adults in such settings might be prone to these disorders because of losses associated with transitioning to residential care, uncertainty about the future, as well as a decline in personal autonomy, health, and cognition. Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is efficacious in treating late-life depression and anxiety. However, there remains a dearth of studies examining CBT in residential settings compared with community settings. Typically, older adults living in residential settings have higher care needs than those living in the community. To date, no systematic reviews have been conducted on the content and the delivery characteristics of CBT for older adults living in residential aged care settings. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to describe the systematic review protocol on the characteristics of CBT for depression and/or anxiety for older adults living in residential aged care settings. METHODS: This protocol was developed in compliance with the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Studies that fulfill the inclusion criteria will be identified by systematically searching relevant electronic databases, reference lists, and citation indexes. In addition, the PRISMA flowchart will be used to record the selection process. A pilot-tested data collection form will be used to extract and record data from the included studies. Two reviewers will be involved in screening the titles and abstracts of retrieved records, screening the full text of potentially relevant reports, and extracting data. Then, the delivery and content characteristics of different CBT programs of the included studies, where available, will be summarized in a table. Furthermore, the Downs and Black checklist will be used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. RESULTS: Systematic searches will commence in May 2018, and data extraction is expected to commence in July 2018. Data analyses and writing will happen in October 2018. CONCLUSIONS: In this section, the limitations of the systematic review will be outlined. Clinical implications for treating late-life depression and/or anxiety, and implications for residential care facilities will be discussed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 42017080113; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=80113 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/70dV4Qf54). REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER: RR1-10.2196/9902.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.075 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.010 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".