COVID-19 pandemic partnership between medical students and isolated elders improves student understanding of older adults’ lived experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence supports loneliness and social isolation as a strong risk factor for poor mental and physical health outcomes for older adults. The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated older adults isolate themselves for a prolonged duration. The Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto established the Student-Senior Isolation Prevention Partnership (SSIPP), a volunteer program involving telephone calls between medical students and older adults. METHODS: A mixed methods pre-post study design included collecting quantitative data from older adults using the UCLA Loneliness Scale and the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale. The study included 29 medical students and 47 older adults. The medical students filled out a questionnaire on self-perceived knowledge of social isolation, perception of seniors, attitudes towards seniors, and likelihood to engage in specialties focusing on older adults. Interviews were conducted with both the older adults and the medical students to understand each groups' experiences and perspectives with taking part in the SSIPP program. RESULTS: Participation in the program resulted in significant changes for medical students in areas such as increasing their likelihood to engage in care for older adults (p < .001), improving their knowledge of social isolation for seniors (p < .001), and the value of addressing social isolation in older adults (p < .001). The interviews conducted with the medical students support these findings and provide insight into contributing factors. Loneliness and mental well-being scales did not show significant changes for older adults however, our interviews revealed they considered the program to be valuable. CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed that after the communication outreach program, medical students' perceptions were positively influenced towards older adults and they were more likely to pursue a career concentrated on older adults. The qualitative analysis revealed older adults valued the program. Timing and consistency of calls were factors identified by this group as having practical importance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".