Understanding the home environment of older adults living with dementia: A scoping review of assessment tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rigorous assessments to better understand the person-environment interaction are essential to comprehend how neurocognitive disorders influence in-home functioning of older people living with dementia. No recent synthesis identifies validated instruments targeting the human (e.g. caregivers) and nonhuman (e.g. objects) elements of the home environment interacting with this population and used with the perspective of aging in place. Consequently, following Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) scoping review method, 2,182 articles were identified in six databases and in gray literature. Two reviewers independently selected 23 relevant articles describing 19 validated assessment tools targeting elements of the home interacting with older people with dementia, namely: nonhuman environment (n = 13), human environment (n = 3), and person-environment interaction (n = 3). This overview highlights the scarcity of tools addressing the human environment and the person-environment interaction to foster sustainable at-home living for older people with neurocognitive disorders, demonstrating the need to incorporate new evidence-based, holistic methods into dementia home care.
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 | 0.014 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".