Dementia-Friendly Neighborhood and the Built Environment: 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: There has been a proliferation of research on dementia-friendly communities in recent years, particularly on interpersonal and social aspects. Nonetheless, the neighborhood built environment remains a co-constituent of the lived experience of people living with dementia (PLWD) that is amenable to interventions for health and well-being in the community. This scoping review presents a narrative synthesis of empirical research on dementia-friendly neighborhoods, with a focus on the built environment and its associated sociobehavioral aspects. Planning and design principles are distilled to identify research and policy implications. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We reviewed 29 articles identified through a systematic search of AgeLine, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, and Scopus. Peer-reviewed articles that employed quantitative and/or qualitative methods in community settings were included. RESULTS: An equal number of studies focused on behavioral/psychosocial aspects of the built environment and assessment of specific environmental features. The former often used qualitative methods, whereas statistical methods were common in studies on discrete features of the neighborhood built environment. Few studies focused on rural contexts. Emerging research areas include interactions between dementia risk factors and neighborhood environments to support primary and secondary prevention. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The body of literature needs expansion into planning and design fields to foster community participation of PLWD by optimizing environmental stimuli, minimizing environmental barriers, and engaging PLWD in dementia-friendly community initiatives. While evidence has accumulated on landmarks and social participation at the individual level, research at the community and policy levels is limited. This requires advanced mixed methods.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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