Aging and Mental Health: Collaborating on Research Priorities with Older Adults, Caregivers and Health and Social Care Providers across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Age-related changes can affect mental health, but aging-focused mental health research is limited. The objective was to identify the top 10 unanswered research questions on aging and mental health according to what matters most to aging Canadians. A steering group of experts-by-experience (e.g., older adults, caregivers, health and social care providers) guided three phases of a modified James Lind Alliance priority-setting partnership: (1) a broad national survey (n = 305) and a rapid literature scan; (2) a follow-up national survey (n = 703); and (3) four online workshops (n = 52) with a nominal group technique. Forty-two unique questions on aging and mental health resulted, of which 18 were determined to be answered by existing evidence. Of the 25 partially and unanswered questions, 10 were ranked as top priority. Findings can be used to prioritize future research, knowledge mobilization, and funding decisions, and to promote and support collaboration between longstanding siloed research and care fields.
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 | 0.063 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".