Access and Use of Services by Caregivers of Older Adults: A Scoping Review of Cultural and Linguistic Diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Westernized countries are home to an increasingly culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) older adult population. Informal caregivers of CLD older adults face unique challenges accessing and using home- and community-based services (HCBS). This scoping review sought to identify facilitators and barriers to access and use of HCBS for informal caregivers of CLD older adults. Arksey and O'Malley's framework guided a systematic search of five electronic databases. The search strategy retrieved 5979 unique articles. Forty-two studies met the inclusion criteria and informed this review. Facilitators and barriers were identified at three stages of using services: knowledge, access, and use of services. Findings concerning access to HCBS were subdivided into willingness and ability to access HCBS. Results emphasize the need for changes in healthcare systems, organizations, and providers to provide culturally appropriate care and improve the accessibility and acceptability of HCBS for informal caregivers of CLD older adults.
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 | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".