MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134657374 · doi:10.2196/26474

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Older Adults: Rapid Review

2021· review· en· W3134657374 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Audrey Lebrasseur, Noémie Fortin-Bédard, Josiane Lettre, Émilie Raymond, Ève-Line Bussières, Nolwenn Lapierre, Julie Faieta, Claude Vincent, Louise Duchesne, Marie‐Christine Ouellet, Éric Gagnon, André Tourigny, Marie‐Ève Lamontagne, François Routhier

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Aging · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services SociauxUniversité du Québec à Trois-RivièresCentre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-NationaleUniversité LavalCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéFonds de recherche du QuébecRéseau Provincial de Recherche en Adaptation-RéadaptationMitacsRéseau québécois de recherche sur le vieillissementCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
KeywordsLonelinessPandemicWorryGerontologyPopulationMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Social isolationIsolation (microbiology)PsychologyDiseasePsychiatryAnxietyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Environmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically changed the lives of countless members of the general population. Older adults are known to experience loneliness, age discrimination, and excessive worry. It is therefore reasonable to anticipate that they would experience greater negative outcomes related to the COVID-19 pandemic given their increased isolation and risk for complications than younger adults. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to synthesize the existing research on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated isolation and protective measures, on older adults. The secondary objective is to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated isolation and protective measures, on older adults with Alzheimer disease and related dementias. METHODS: A rapid review of the published literature was conducted on October 6, 2020, through a search of 6 online databases to synthesize results from published original studies regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults. The Human Development Model conceptual framework-Disability Creation Process was used to describe and understand interactions between personal factors, environmental factors, and life habits. Methods and results are reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement. RESULTS: A total of 135 records were included from the initial search strategy of 13,452 individual studies. Of these, 113 (83.7%) studies were determined to be of level 4 according to the levels of evidence classification by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The presence of psychological symptoms, exacerbation of ageism, and physical deterioration of aged populations were reported in the included studies. Decreased social life and fewer in-person social interactions reported during the COVID-19 pandemic were occasionally associated with reduced quality of life and increased depression. Difficulties accessing services, sleep disturbances, and a reduction of physical activity were also noted. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight the need for adequate isolation and protective measures. Older adults represent a heterogeneous group, which could explain the contradictory results found in the literature. Individual, organizational, and institutional strategies should be established to ensure that older adults are able to maintain social contacts, preserve family ties, and maintain the ability to give or receive help during the current pandemic. Future studies should focus on specific consequences and needs of more at-risk older adults to ensure their inclusion, both in public health recommendations and considerations made by policy makers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.070

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.009
Bibliometrics0.0160.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.538
Teacher spread0.357 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations388
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR AgingSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207