Help-seeking behaviours among older adults: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Despite evidence that illustrates the unmet healthcare needs of older adults, there is limited research examining their help-seeking behaviour, of which direct intervention can improve patient outcomes. Research in this area conducted with a focus on ethnic minority older adults is also needed, as their help-seeking behaviours may be influenced by various cultural factors. This scoping review aims to explore the global literature on the factors associated with help-seeking behaviours of older adults and how cultural values and backgrounds may impact ethnic minority older adults' help-seeking behaviours in different ways. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review process will be guided by the methodology framework of Arksey and O'Malley and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Protocols Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. The following electronic databases will be systematically searched from January 2005 onwards: MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus. Studies of various designs and methodologies consisting of older adults aged 65 years or older, who are exhibiting help-seeking behaviours for the purpose of remedying a physical or mental health challenge, will be considered for inclusion. Two reviewers will screen full texts and chart data. The results of this scoping review will be summarised quantitatively through numerical counts and qualitatively through a narrative synthesis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this is a scoping review of published literature, ethics approval is not required. Results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal. DISCUSSION: This scoping review will synthesise the current literature related to the help-seeking behaviours of older adults and ethnic minority older adults. It will identify current gaps in research and potential ways to move forward in developing or implementing strategies that support the various health needs of the diverse older adult population. REGISTRATION: This scoping review protocol has been registered with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/69kmx).
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 | 0.150 | 0.099 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.017 |
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".