Social participation experiences of older adults with an early-onset physical disability: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to assess and synthesize the available qualitative evidence on the experiences of social participation of older adults with an early-onset physical disability. INTRODUCTION: Understanding the experiences of social participation among older adults with a physical disability acquired earlier in life can guide the development of interventions and policies. It will also help with fostering meaningful community participation and aid in improving the quality of their social participation. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider primary studies that explore the experiences of social participation of older adults with an early-onset physical disability. The review will focus on qualitative data, including methods such as phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography, action research, and feminist research. Studies in French or English will be considered for inclusion, and there will be no limitation on publication dates. METHODS: A keyword search strategy will be carried out in MEDLINE (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses (ProQuest) will be searched for unpublished articles. Two independent reviewers will perform the screening and inclusion process, assess the quality of the evidence, and complete data extraction. The JBI approach to critical appraisal, study selection, data extraction, and data synthesis (meta-aggregation) will be used. The ConQual approach will be used to establish confidence in the synthesized findings. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022371027.
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 | 0.098 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.008 |
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".