More Than Just a Room: A Scoping Review of the Impact of Homesharing for Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: "Aging in place" is commonly defined as the ability to remain living safely and independently for as long as possible either in the home or community of one's choosing. Yet, the literature indicates that older adults prefer to remain specifically in their own homes. Homesharing, an innovative exchange-based housing approach, is a means by which older adults can obtain additional income, companionship, and assistance by renting out a room to a home seeker, potentially increasing capacity to remain living independently in their homes. But what is known about their experiences of homesharing? RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A scoping review was conducted to map and consolidate the literature related to the experience of homeshare participation for adults aged 55 and older published from 1989 to 2018. Fifteen databases were searched, including 3 medical, 5 social science, and 7 gray literature databases. Following abstract and full-text review, 6 sources were retained for study inclusion. Thematic content analysis was used to identify major themes. RESULTS: Within included studies, 4 major themes were identified: (i) benefits of homeshare participation for older adults; (ii) challenges of participating in homeshare for older adults; (iii) intergenerational engagement as social exchange; and (iv) the key role of agency facilitation. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Findings were used to derive practice, policy, and research implications. By focusing on older adults and the ways homesharing impacts their lives, we can better determine the viability of homeshare as a means for improving and prolonging experiences of living at home.
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 | 0.012 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".