Intergenerational Engagement in Residential Settings: A Scoping Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Intergenerational engagement provides a rich environment for people of different ages to come together and exchange life stories, skills, and knowledge. Today, intergenerational interactions are decreasing, however, these exchanges can have positive implications for seniors in residential care homes (RCHs) and younger persons. A scoping review following Arksey and O’Malley’s five-step framework was conducted to investigate the impact of intergenerational engagement and programs (IGPs) on older adults in RCHs. A systematic search of ten electronic databases and hand search of references was carried out; thematic content analysis to established key themes. A total of 1,183 academic and grey literature sources were reviewed, with 66 full-text studies assessed for eligibility. Of these sources, 35 studies met inclusion criteria. Studies highlighted four main themes: 1. Types of IGPs, 2. Psycho-social benefits for older adults and improved status among elders with cognitive impairments, 3. Younger person benefits, suggesting reduced ageism and improved social and communication skills, and 4. Program recommendations, including the need for enthusiastic program facilitators, coordination between facilities, sensitivity training for younger persons, detailed advertisements, and appropriate activities for different age groups. Findings inform future practice and research, highlighting that IGPs are an effective strategy to alleviate negative health outcomes for seniors in RCHs. Future research is needed to evaluate long-term effects and further health outcomes. IGPs provide an opportunity to facilitate purposeful and reciprocal relationships between generations, fostering intergenerational understanding. By studying IGPs and intergenerational interactions, we can better determine practices that meaningfully engage elders in RCHs in Canada.
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 | 0.019 | 0.071 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.028 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".