Barriers in health and social care access and navigation for elder orphans: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Family members have traditionally been relied on to provide informal care to older adults. However, social and demographic changes are resulting in rising numbers of kinless and isolated elderly who are unable to rely on familial caregiving and are without assistance in navigating complex systems of health and social services. Research examining this vulnerable subset of the elderly population, identified as elder orphans, is limited, particularly within the context of health and social care access. The aim of this scoping review is to map and report the evidence available in identifying barriers and facilitating factors in health and social care access and system navigation by elder orphans. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Arksey and O'Malley's six-staged methodology framework will guide the conduct of this scoping review. The primary author will conduct a systematic search and an initial screen of titles and abstracts from six electronic databases (CINAHL Complete, ASSIA, Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science and PsycINFO) from January 2005 to the date of commencement, to identify English language peer reviewed studies of various methodologies. Subsequently, two reviewers will independently screen a shorter list of studies for inclusion. We will also search the reference lists of eligible studies. Data from the selected studies will be extracted and charted by two independent reviewers. Findings will be summarised in a tabulated format and accompanied by a narrative synthesis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As the scoping review methodology aims to synthesise information from publicly available materials, this study does not require ethical approval. The finalised scoping review will be submitted for publication to a scientific journal. REGISTRATION: The present protocol has been registered with the Open Science Framework platform (registration ID: https://osf.io/7vjty/).
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".