Sex and gender differences in social participation among community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Frequent social participation among older adults is associated with greater health. Although understanding how sex and gender influence social participation is important, particularly in developing sex-inclusive health promotion and preventive interventions, little is known about factors influencing engagement of older women and men in social activities. Aim: This study thus aimed to examine factors influencing social activities of older women and men. Methods: A mixed-method systematic review was conducted in nine electronic databases from inception to March 2023. The studies had to define social participation as activities with others and examine its influencing factors among community-dwelling older women and men. Data were analyzed using convergent synthesis design from a socio-ecological perspective. Results: Forty-nine studies, comprising 42 quantitative, five qualitative and two mixed method design were included. Themes identified concerned: (a) sociodemographic factors, (b) personal assets, (c) interpersonal relationships and commitments, (d) physical environment, and (e) societal norms and gender expectations. The findings identified the heterogeneous needs, preferences and inequalities faced by older women and men, considerations on sociocultural expectations and norms of each gender when engaging in social activities, and the importance of having adequate and accessible social spaces. Overall, this review identified more evidence on factors influencing social participation among women than in men. Conclusion: Special attention is needed among community care providers and healthcare professionals to co-design, implement or prescribe a combination of sex and gender-specific and neutral activities that interest both older women and men. Intersectoral collaborative actions, including public health advocates, gerontologists, policymakers, and land use planners, are needed to unify efforts to foster social inclusion by creating an age-friendly and sustainable healthy environment. More longitudinal studies are required to better understand social participation trajectories from a sex and gender perspective and identify factors influencing it. Systematic reviews registration: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier [CRD42023392764].
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 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 | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".