Exacerbated inequalities: A scoping review of the experiences of older persons during conflict situations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We conducted the first known comprehensive literature review to (1) identify, categorize, and summarize the existing knowledge about the experiences of older persons and their caregivers during conflict situations; (2) identify the support needs of older persons and their caregivers, and; (3) identify gaps in the literature and understanding that may inform future research. METHODS: A scoping review methodology of academic peer-reviewed and gray English language literature was employed using six academic literature databases and one gray literature database. We further performed comprehensive searches of relevant search engines and organization websites and bibliographic hand searches to identify additional academic and gray literature. Two authors screened for eligibility of identified studies and documents. One reviewer extracted data regarding authors, article type, geographic origin, key participant characteristics, aims, study design and data collection method, results, conclusions and limitations. Data were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: 83 documents met this review's inclusion criteria, including 21 academic documents and 62 from the gray literature. Thematic analysis revealed that conflict situations exacerbate existing inequalities experienced by older persons. Within this overarching theme were three interconnected sub-themes: (1) Older adults are particularly vulnerable during conflict situations; (2) Older persons are inadequately supported in conflict situations; (3) In the face of great challenges, many older adults still manage to endure through conflict situations. We identified 15 recommendations from the reviewed documents to better support older adults in conflict situations. CONCLUSIONS: Existing inequalities, such as ageism and ableism, targeted discrimination, and poor health outcomes, become exacerbated during conflict situations, resulting in older persons being less able to flee and meet their daily needs with sufficient access to necessities and healthcare. Little is known of the experiences and needs of family caregivers during conflict situations. We identified several opportunities to improve the experience and support of older persons in conflict situations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".