Experiences of residents of long-term-care homes with the use of socially assistive technologies and the effectiveness of these technologies: a mixed methods systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to explore the experiences of residents of long-term-care homes using socially assistive technologies and the effectiveness of these technologies in relation to depression, loneliness, and social interaction. INTRODUCTION: Research related to the experiences of residents of long-term-care homes with socially assistive technologies, and their effectiveness, is limited. This population of older adults is projected to steeply increase in the future, as will the need for services, such as long-term care. Older adults (≥65 years) in long-term care are at increased risk of depression, loneliness, and social isolation. Therefore, there is a need to explore the experiences of long-term-care residents with the use of socially assistive technologies and to determine the effectiveness of these technologies in relation to depression, loneliness, and social interaction. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will include studies about the experiences of older adults in long-term care using socially assistive technologies, and the effectiveness of these technologies. Older adults are defined as people 65 years of age and above. We will consider human-to-human socially assistive technologies, such as computers, smart phones, tablets, and associated applications. We will review quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies. METHODS: A JBI mixed methods convergent segregated approach will be used. Select databases and gray literature will be searched for published and unpublished studies, with no date or language limits. Titles, abstracts, and full texts of included studies will be screened by at least two reviewers, and undergo quality appraisal, data extraction, and synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data followed by integration of the two types of evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42021279015.
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 | 0.008 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".