Examining Community-Based Housing Models to Support Aging in Place: A Scoping Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: With the global population aging, there is a demand for older adults to age in place, that is, to live and age well in their home and community with some level of independence. Community-based housing models exist and may support this process. This scoping review aimed to describe and synthesize the ways in which community-based housing models relate to older adults' aging in place and identify strengths and gaps in the literature. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: The housing models explored were villages, naturally occurring retirement communities, congregate housing and cohousing, sheltered housing, and continuing care retirement communities. This exploratory scoping review examined international peer-reviewed literature published from 2004 to 2019. Six databases were searched using terms related to housing models and older adults. Forty-six articles met the inclusion criteria. Descriptive numerical summary and thematic analysis were used to synthesize study characteristics and findings. RESULTS: Our analysis revealed 4 themes relating to aging in place in the housing models: Social Relations, Health and Well-being, Sense of Self and Autonomy, and Activity Participation. Further analysis identified housing-specific characteristics that appeared to pose barriers to, or enable, aging in place. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: To best support aging in place, the findings of the review suggest multiple characteristics worth considering when developing or relocating to a community-based housing model. Further research is required to understand how facilitating characteristics can promote aging in place for community-dwelling older adults.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 it