Residential Environments for Older Persons: A Comprehensive Literature Review (2005–2022)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Independent noninstitutional and institutional residential long-term care environments for older persons have been the subject of significant empirical and qualitative research in the 2005-2022 period. A comprehensive review of this literature is reported, summarizing recent advancements in this rapidly expanding body of knowledge. PURPOSE AND AIM: This comprehensive review conceptually structures the recent literature on environment and aging to provide conceptual clarity and identify current and future trends. METHOD AND RESULT: Each source reviewed was classified as one of the five types-opinion piece/essay, cross-sectional empirical investigation, nonrandomized comparative investigation, randomized study, and policy review essay-within eight content categories: community-based aging in place; residentialism; nature, landscape, and biophilia; dementia special care units; voluntary/involuntary relocation; infection control/COVID-19, safety/environmental stress; ecological and cost-effective best practices; and recent design trends and prognostications. CONCLUSIONS: Among the findings embodied in the 204 literature sources reviewed, all-private room long-term care residential units are generally safer and provide greater privacy and personal autonomy to residents, the deleterious impacts of involuntary relocation continue, family engagement in policy making and daily routines has increased, multigenerational independent living alternatives are increasing, the therapeutic role of nature and landscape is increasingly well-documented, ecological sustainability has increased in priority, and infection control measures are of high priority in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. Discussion of the results of this comprehensive review sets the stage for further research and design advancements on this subject in light of the rapid aging of societies around the globe.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".