MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226542128

Do Interventions Reducing Social Vulnerability Improve Health in Community Dwelling Older Adults? A Systematic Review

2022· review· en· W4226542128 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jasmine Mah, Kenneth Rockwood, Susan Stevens, Janice Keefe, Melissa K. Andrew

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent UniversityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionMedicineGerontologyVulnerability (computing)Social vulnerabilityDisadvantagedSocial supportSocial determinants of healthEnvironmental healthPublic healthPsychologyPsychiatryNursingSocial psychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jasmine Mah,1 Kenneth Rockwood,2 Susan Stevens,3 Janice Keefe,3 Melissa K Andrew2 1Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada; 2Division of Geriatric Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada; 3Department of Family Studies and Gerontology, Mount Saint Vincent University, Halifax, NS, CanadaCorrespondence: Jasmine Mah, Geriatric Medicine Research, Dalhousie University/Nova Scotia Health, 1315 – 5955 Veterans’ Memorial Lane, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 2E1, Canada, Tel +1-613-618-8810, Email jmah@dal.caBackground: Social vulnerability occurs when individuals have been relatively disadvantaged by the social determinants of health. Complex interventions that reduce social vulnerability have the potential to improve health in older adults but robust evidence is lacking.Objective: To identify, appraise and synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of complex interventions targeting reduction in social vulnerability for improving health related outcomes (mortality, function, cognition, subjective health and healthcare use) in older adults living in the community.Methods: A mixed methods systematic review was conducted. Five databases and targeted grey literature were searched for primary studies of all study types according to predetermined criteria. Data were extracted from each distinct intervention and quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Effectiveness data were synthesized using vote counting by direction of effect, combining p values and Albatross plots.Results: Across 38 included studies, there were 34 distinct interventions categorized as strengthening social supports and communities, helping older adults and their caregivers navigate health and social services, enhancing neighbourhood and built environments, promoting education and providing economic stability. There was evidence to support positive influences on function, cognition, subjective health, and reduced hospital utilization. The evidence was mixed for non-hospital healthcare utilization and insufficient to determine effect on mortality.Conclusion: Despite high heterogeneity and varying quality of studies, attention to reducing an older adult’s social vulnerability assists in improving older adults’ health.Keywords: social determinants, older adults, complex interventions, social frailty

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.010
Bibliometrics0.0100.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.503
GPT teacher head0.660
Teacher spread0.157 · 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

Citations33
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)Same topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207