Dementia-Friendly Transportation Services: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Transportation is an important component of dementia-friendly communities. People living with dementia have the right to access transportation services to keep their mobility in their community, which is essential for independence, well-being, and quality of life. This scoping review maps the literature on dementia-friendly transportation services and explores their characteristics to inform future development and research. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Empirical quantitative and qualitative studies in English or French that informed on transportation services for people living with dementia in the community were searched in 15 databases. Two authors independently screened records and charted relevant characteristics from selected publications. Important findings were summarized with a narrative synthesis approach. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies informed on important dimensions of transportation services in urban and/or rural context: availability, accessibility, acceptability, adaptability, and affordability. Important insights were identified: the importance of staff training and attitude, and the challenges of availability of affordable services in the rural context. Emerging policy and program intervention areas include the need for access to quiet areas in transit hubs, training to use mass public transit and mobility management. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The literature on dementia-friendly transportation services is important in the expansion and maintenance of mobility for people living with dementia in the community. The scope of the existing scientific literature remains limited. Although several studies indicated a clear need for better access to dementia-friendly transportation services, the best practices still need to be demonstrated in the scientific literature.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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".