Strategies for engaging older adults and informal caregivers in health policy development: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Care for older adults is high on the global policy agenda. Active involvement of older adults and their informal caregivers in policy-making can lead to cost-effective health and long-term care interventions. Yet, approaches for their involvement in health policy development have yet to be extensively explored. This review maps the literature on strategies for older adults (65+ years) and informal caregivers' involvement in health policy development. METHOD: As part of the European Union TRANS-SENIOR program, a scoping review was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology. Published and grey literature was searched, and eligible studies were screened. Data were extracted from included studies and analysed using the Multidimensional Framework for Patient and Family Engagement in Health and Healthcare. RESULTS: A total of 13 engagement strategies were identified from 11 publications meeting the inclusion criteria. They were categorized as "traditional", "deliberative" and "others", adopting the World Bank's categorization of engagement methods. Older adults and informal caregivers are often consulted to elicit opinions and identify priorities. However, their involvement in policy formulation, implementation and evaluation is unclear from the available literature. Findings indicate that older adults and their informal caregivers do not often have equal influence and shared leadership in policy-making. CONCLUSION: Although approaches for involving older adults and their informal caregivers' involvement were synthesized from literature, we found next to no information about their involvement in policy formulation, implementation and evaluation. Findings will guide future research in addressing identified gaps and guide policy-makers in identifying and incorporating engagement strategies to support evidence-informed policy-making processes that can improve health outcomes for older adults/informal caregivers.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | high |
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 | 0.088 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".