Characteristics of Occupational Therapy Interventions to Promote Healthy Aging: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Healthy aging is a pressing public health priority. Focusing on what people do every day may be a meaningful approach to lifestyle change, suggesting a need for occupation therapy interventions to promote healthy aging. A preliminary database search was conducted, and no current or underway systematic or scoping reviews on the topic were identified. Developing an overview of studies of occupational therapy interventions to promote healthy aging is a necessary first step to understanding the existing knowledge and increasing the impact of future interventions. This scoping review will build on previously conducted reviews. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review will identify the following: (1) what occupational therapy interventions exist for promoting healthy aging in community-dwelling adults? and (2) what are the intervention characteristics, their evaluated outcome, and the impact observed? METHODS: This protocol was reviewed by 2 occupational therapists as part of a patient and public involvement consultation. The review will consider all studies and publications of occupational therapy focused on promoting healthy aging in community-dwelling adults who are aged 18 years and older. Databases to be searched are AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, JBI EBP database, MEDLINE, OAlster, PsycINFO, PsycArticles, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, ProQuest nursing and allied health source, PubMed, and Science Direct. Studies published in any language will be included. Titles and abstracts will be screened against the inclusion criteria using Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation). Potentially relevant studies will be retrieved in full and assessed against the inclusion criteria. No date limiters will be used. Study selection will be completed by 2 independent reviewers. Data will be extracted using a data extraction tool, including descriptive characteristics of the participants including age, sex, and socioeconomic status. Data will be charted using the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist in alignment with the review objectives. The scoping review will be reported in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) statement. RESULTS: The research began in October 2023, and the results are expected to be published in 2024. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review will produce valuable information about occupation-based interventions to promote healthy aging to support the development of an occupational therapy intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework 5k36d; https://osf.io/5k36d/. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/55198.
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 | 0.072 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.109 | 0.017 |
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".