MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392914920 · doi:10.1080/03601277.2024.2325722

Contexts, mechanisms and outcomes of interventions to counter ageism toward older adults in undergraduate health and social services students: Results of a realist review

2024· review· en· W4392914920 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Gerontology · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAging and Gerontology Research
Canadian institutionsHealth and Social Services Centre University Institute of Geriatrics of SherbrookeUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMitacs
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychologyGerontologyPrejudice (legal term)Health careMedicineSocial psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ageism might reduce the effectiveness and quality of care in older adults essential with the aging population. Although interventions to counter ageism were carried out among students, no clear integration of their results described the mechanisms underlying their impact. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of which interventions amongst undergraduate health and social services students are effective, under which circumstances, how, and with what outcomes. A realist review was carried out using 44 keywords in 6 databases. The configurations for contexts, mechanisms, and outcomes were identified for three types of interventions, considering their impact on stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination toward older adults. In the 63 studies selected, intergenerational contact interventions exhibited the greatest proportion (14/15; 93.3%) of evidence supporting improvement in outcomes of ageism, followed by combined (67/84; 79.8%) and educational (51/67; 76.1%) interventions. Stereotypes and prejudices were challenged by the transmission of realistic and balanced information, as well as through meaningful and high-quality intergenerational contact. Meeting or hearing about a broad variety of older adults in specific conditions also helped to decrease ageism. Results highlighted the importance of seeing diversity and uniqueness in older adults, and their competencies rather than their limitations. Mechanisms were occasionally hampered by obstacles, such as induced anxiety and confirmation of negative aspects of aging. Countering ageism in health and social services students is essential to ensuring high-quality care. In knowing that educators, professionals, and institutions have a direct influence on students, their awareness of ageism should be enhanced by interventions targeting them.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.394
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.123
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.396 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it