Healthcare practices among refugee older adults: A protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Healthcare systems worldwide face the significant challenge of meeting the complex healthcare needs of refugee older adults. These individuals encounter numerous barriers at micro, meso, and macro levels in accessing and using healthcare in their host or resettled countries. Beyond these barriers, understanding their specific healthcare needs, healthcare-seeking behaviors, health practices, and the facilitators that enhance their access to and utilization of both formal and informal healthcare is crucial for improving their health outcomes. Objective: Our scoping review aims to capture the scope and range of evidence on refugee older adults’ healthcare needs, healthcare-seeking behaviors, health practices, and facilitators and barriers to access to and utilization of formal and informal healthcare. Methods: The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews along with the PRISMA-ScR framework will guide this scoping review. Literature written in English and published between 2011 and 2024 will be selected if they focused on refugee older adults who are 55 years of age and older. Scholarly literature will be searched using CINAHL, SocINDEX, Academic Search Complete, PsycINFO and MEDLINE, and gray literature will be captured by searching ProQuest’s Dissertations and Theses Global, Google, and Google Scholar. The extracted data will be synthesized, and narratively presented and supported by tables designed to align with the scoping review’s objective. Implications: The results of this scoping review will be used to offer actionable insights for healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers. By mapping the existing landscape and identifying gaps, we also hope to inform the development of more inclusive and responsive healthcare models that address the specific needs of refugee older adults.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".