Social Factors Associated With Nutrition Risk in Community-Dwelling Older Adults in High-Income Countries: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In high-income countries (HICs), between 65% and 70% of community-dwelling adults aged 65 and older are at high nutrition risk. Nutrition risk is the risk of poor dietary intake and nutritional status. Consequences of high nutrition risk include frailty, hospitalization, death, and reduced quality of life. Social factors (such as social support and commensality) are known to influence eating behavior in later life; however, to the authors' knowledge, no reviews have been conducted examining how these social factors are associated with nutrition risk specifically. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review is to understand the extent and type of evidence concerning the relationship between social factors and nutrition risk among community-dwelling older adults in HICs and to identify social interventions that address nutrition risk in community-dwelling older adults in HICs. METHODS: This review will follow the scoping review methodology as outlined by the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. The search will include MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. There will be no date limits placed on the search. However, only resources available in English will be included. EndNote (Clarivate Analytics) and Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation Ltd) will be used for reference management and removal of duplicate studies. Articles will be screened, and data will be extracted by at least 2 independent reviewers using Covidence. Data to be extracted will include study characteristics (country, methods, aims, design, and dates), participant characteristics (population description, inclusion and exclusion criteria, recruitment method, total number of participants, and demographics), how nutrition risk was measured (including the tool used to measure nutrition risk), social factors or interventions examined (including how these were measured or determined), the relationship between nutrition risk and the social factors examined, and the details of social interventions designed to address nutrition risk. RESULTS: The scoping review was started in October 2023 and will be finalized by August 2024. The findings will describe the social factors commonly examined in the nutrition risk literature, the relationship between these social factors and nutrition risk, the social factors that have an impact on nutrition risk, and social interventions designed to address nutrition risk. The results of the extracted data will be presented in the form of a narrative summary with accompanying tables. CONCLUSIONS: Given the high prevalence of nutrition risk in community-dwelling older adults in HICs and the negative consequences of nutrition risk, it is essential to understand the social factors associated with nutrition risk. The results of the review are anticipated to aid in identifying individuals who should be screened proactively for nutrition risk and inform programs, policies, and interventions designed to reduce the prevalence of nutrition risk. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/56714.
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 | 0.084 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.021 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.091 | 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".