MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2996228568 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033240

Social integration and loneliness among long-term care home residents: protocol for a scoping review

2019· review· en· W2996228568 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Bethell, Jessica Babineau, Andrea Iaboni, Robin Green, Rachelle Cuaresma-Canlas, Roobika Karunananthan, Barbara Schon, Denise Schon, Katherine S. McGilton

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of TorontoHome and Community Care Support ServicesUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCINAHLLonelinessPsycINFOMEDLINEMedicineScopusGerontologyPopulationNursingPsychological interventionPsychiatryEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Social well-being is associated with better physical and mental health. It is also important for quality of life, including from the perspectives of those living in long-term care (LTC) homes. However, given the characteristics of the LTC home environment and the people who live there, the nature and influence of social integration and loneliness, and strategies to address them, may differ in this population compared with those living in the community. The objective of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the nature and extent of research on social integration and loneliness among LTC home residents, including a summary of how these concepts have been operationalised and any evidence from specific groups. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study protocol describes the methods of a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature related to social integration and loneliness among LTC home residents. A literature search was developed by an Information Specialist and will be conducted in MEDLINE(R) ALL (in Ovid, including Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily) and then translated into CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (Ovid), Scopus, Sociological Abstracts (Proquest), Embase and Embase Classic (Ovid), Emcare Nursing (Ovid) and AgeLine (EBSCO). Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts of articles identified in the search. Two reviewers will then independently review full text articles for inclusion. Data extraction will also be carried out in duplicate. We will engage LTC home community members, including residents, family and staff, to refine the review questions, assist in interpreting the results and participate in knowledge translation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. We will present findings at conferences and publish in a peer-reviewed journal. Ultimately, we hope to inform future observational and interventional research aimed at improving the health and quality of life of LTC home residents.

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)0.087
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
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: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0870.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.015
Bibliometrics0.0160.014
Science and technology studies0.0050.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.009
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0100.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0800.013

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 head0.371
GPT teacher head0.624
Teacher spread0.252 · 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
GenreProtocol

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

Citations27
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open→Same topicHealth disparities and outcomes→French-language works237,207→