Strategies for equity, diversity and inclusion in geriatric healthcare professional curricula: A scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The pursuit of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) in healthcare education has garnered significant attention in recent years, reflecting a broader societal imperative for equitable healthcare delivery. However, existing curricula within geriatric healthcare education may not adequately address these diverse needs within their educational frameworks, inadvertently resulting in disparities in care delivery and outcomes. Within the realm of geriatric healthcare, addressing EDI is particularly crucial due to the diverse needs of older adult populations and the imperative for healthcare professionals to deliver culturally humble care. This review provides a comprehensive overview of strategies and curricular strategies, actions and/or initiatives to promote EDI within geriatric healthcare professional education. METHODS: This paper presents a protocol for a forthcoming scoping review. The methodology for this scoping review adheres to the framework outlined in the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual, encompassing four main stages: (1) formulation of a search strategy, (2) screening and selection of evidence, (3) data extraction, and (4) analysis. We will conduct a comprehensive search of peer-reviewed and empirical literature. Additionally, we will explore the reference lists of included studies to identify any relevant sources. The synthesis of findings will be conducted through a narrative approach. Reporting of the methods and results will adhere to the guidelines provided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). DISCUSSION: Healthcare professionals must possess the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to deliver culturally humble care that respects and responds to diverse older adults' unique needs and preferences. The review aims to fill a crucial gap in the literature by providing a comprehensive overview of strategies and curricular interventions designed to promote EDI within geriatric healthcare professional education. By mapping these strategies, actions and/or initiatives, the review seeks to identify trends, challenges, and opportunities for advancing EDI within geriatric care. The forthcoming review serves as a call to action for educators, healthcare institutions, and decision makers to prioritize EDI within geriatric healthcare education. The review identifies effective strategies and interventions for promoting EDI, providing actionable insights to inform the development of inclusive curricula, training programs, and institutional policies, which can contribute to cultivating a healthcare workforce better equipped to address the complex and evolving needs of aging populations equitably and compassionately.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.018 |
| 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".