Socially sustainable housing and built environments to support the health and social inclusion of older adults: protocol for a scoping review and stakeholder consultation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Housing and the ageing population are issues that pose challenges for social, health and economic policies. Therefore, there is a need for more knowledge on how to design housing and public infrastructure to improve the social engagement and well-being of older adults who age in place. This project aims to provide an overview of the existing literature on design features that support socially sustainable living environments for older adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic scoping methodology was used to identify and summarise the findings. Four databases were searched (CINAHL (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Scopus, Medline and Embase) to identify the articles. Articles were included if published in English in the last 15 years (eg, from January 2008 to June 2023) without restricting the study location or country. Articles were included if they were based on empirical qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method data. The results of the review will be discussed with a panel of 15 stakeholders (n=15) from Canada, Sweden and the Netherlands (five per country). The interdisciplinary stakeholders will have expertise in housing, architecture, engineering and social and health services. The consultations will provide content expertise to the literature findings and an opportunity to build evidence-based solutions that support the design of socially sustainable living environments for older persons. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical clearance for this project has been granted by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority for Dalarna University (dnr 2023-01543-01) and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Sciences (NES) Ethics Committee at the University of Twente in the Netherlands (dnr 230407) has approved this project. Stakeholders will be asked to provide signed consent to participate in the study. The results of this project will be disseminated through web seminars, community advisory groups, peer-reviewed journals and policy documents to support the development of housing and public health policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: OSF, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/PR2NC.
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 | 0.128 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.013 |
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".