Push and Pull Factors Surrounding Older Adults’ Relocation to Supportive Housing: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supportive housing, including retirement homes and assisted living, is increasingly touted as a suitable living option for Canadian older adults. This scoping review describes the nature and content of studies that explore underlying factors that motivate older adults to relocate to supportive housing. We conducted a search of PubMed, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science, and PsycINFO, which identified 34 articles for review. Articles reviewed employed a variety of methods and guiding theoretical frameworks, of which the push and pull framework appeared to be most common. This review suggests that health and functional deficits are important reasons for relocation to supportive housing for older adults. Further longitudinal data are required to more comprehensively describe medical and social determinants for relocation and its consequences, in order to better describe this growing population and better align policies with the needs of older adults contemplating or undergoing relocation.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".