MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295077767 · doi:10.11124/jbies-21-00409

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

2022· article· en· W4295077767 on OpenAlexaff
Marilyn Macdonald, Lori E. Weeks, Elaine Moody, Ruth Martin‐Misener, Damilola Iduye, Chelsa States, Melissa Ignaczak, Alannah Delahunty‐Pike, Julie Caruso, Janet Simm, Melissa Rothfus

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTechnology Use by Older Adults
Canadian institutionsNorthwoodKellogg's (Canada)Nova Scotia Health AuthorityDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLonelinessSocial isolationPsychologyQualitative researchPopulationIndependent livingGerontologyCritical appraisalLong-term careApplied psychologyMedicineNursingSocial psychologySociologyAlternative medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.101
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.091
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1010.091
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0150.014
Bibliometrics0.0200.015
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0050.006
Research integrity0.0070.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.004

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicTechnology Use by Older AdultsFrench-language works237,207