Factors influencing emotional support of older adults living in the community: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Emotional support is key to improve older adults' subjective health, and psychological, social and emotional well-being. However, many older adults living in the community lack emotional support, increasing the risk for loneliness, depression, anxiety, potentially avoidable healthcare use and costs, and premature death. Multiple intersecting factors may influence emotional support of older adults in the community, but these are poorly understood. Studies have focused on specific populations (e.g., older adults with depression, cancer). Although relevant, these studies may not capture modifiable factors for the wider and more diverse population of older adults living in the community. Our scoping review will address these important gaps. We will identify and synthesize the evidence on factors that influence emotional support of older adults in the community. METHODS: We will use the Johanna Briggs Institute updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews to guide our review process. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, APA Psycinfo, CINAHL, Dissertations and Theses Global, and Scopus from inception. We will include studies published in English, examining factors influencing emotional support of older adults residing in community, without restrictions on the study design or year of publication. We will also include gray literature (dissertations and reports). Two independent reviewers will conduct title, abstract, and full-text screening, as well as risk of bias assessment, using validated quality appraisal tools based on study designs. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus. The primary reviewer will extract the data from all studies, and the second reviewer will check the extractions of all the studies. We will use descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis for analysis. Family/friend caregivers and older adults involved as an advisory group will help with explaining the findings in terms of whether associations observed reflect their experiences and reality. We will analyze the discussion and generate themes, and summarize in a narrative form. DISCUSSION: This scoping review may identify factors that could be modified or mitigated to improve emotional support provision for older adults residing in community. The knowledge will inform the development of tailored interventions directed to older adults and their caregivers. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4TAEB (associated project link: osf.io/6y48t).
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 | 0.037 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".