Experience of loneliness and depression due to spousal separation in long-term care residents and their spouses: a qualitative systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to describe the experience of loneliness and/or depression due to spousal separation when one or both spouses are admitted into a long-term care facility. INTRODUCTION: Loneliness and depression are important concerns for the health and well-being of older adults separated from their spouses due to long-term care placement. Social relationships, specifically spousal relationships, have a significant impact on the mental health of older adults. However, there is limited research on the experience or effect of spousal separation on long-term care residents' and their spouses' experience of loneliness and/or depression. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will include long-term care residents and their spouses who are over the age of 50 and have a spouse they are separated from due to long-term care placement. Studies will be included in this review if they explore the experiences of loneliness and/or depression due to spousal separation with one or both spouses living in a long-term care facility. METHODS: This review will be conducted in line with the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. MEDLINE was used for the initial search. A full search strategy was then developed for MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and PsycINFO. The JBI approach to study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, data synthesis, and assessment of confidence will be used. Two reviewers will pilot test the screening criteria and data extraction protocol. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022333014.
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 | 0.099 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.036 | 0.004 |
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.
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".