Creating dementia-friendly and inclusive communities for social inclusion: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The number of people with dementia is increasing worldwide, with the majority of people with dementia living at home in the community. WHO calls for global action on the public health response to dementia. Social exclusion is commonly reported by people with dementia and their families. Dementia-friendly and inclusive community has emerged as an idea that holds potential to contribute to the mitigation of social exclusion. The objective of the scoping review is to answer two questions: What social inclusion strategies that have been reported in the dementia-friendly and inclusive communities' literature? What strategies for developing dementia-friendly and inclusive communities that have shown to improve social inclusion? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology and will take place between April and September 2020. The proposed review will consider studies based in community settings with participants living at home with early to late stages of dementia and their families. This includes a three-step search strategy: (1) to identify keywords from MEDLINE and CINAHL; (2) to conduct a second search using all identified keywords and index terms across selected databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, AgeLine, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest and Google) and (3) to handsearch the reference lists of all included articles and reports for additional studies. Further, we will search Google for grey literature on published organisational reports. Two researchers will screen titles and abstracts independently and then assess the full text of selected citations against inclusion criteria. Extracted data will be presented in a narrative accompanied by tables that reflect the objective of the review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As the methodology of this study consists of collecting data from publicly available articles, it does not require ethics approval. This scoping review provides an overview of current evidence on strategies that support dementia-friendly and inclusive communities for social inclusion. The findings will offer insights to inform strategies for education, practice, policy and future research. We will share the scoping review results through conference presentations and an open-access publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
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 | 0.144 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.083 | 0.023 |
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".