SOCIAL PARTICIPATION OF OLDER ADULTS AT RISK OF MARGINALIZATION: RESULTS FROM A SCOPING REVIEW OF INTERVENTIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Considering demographic aging, it is essential to better consider the heterogeneity of older adults in promoting the health of all, especially by fostering social participation of the population at risk of marginalization and social exclusion. Despite vulnerability to isolation and loneliness this population, knowledge about social participation interventions lack integration, and this group is under-represented in studies. This study thus aimed to identify, describe, and integrate knowledge about interventions that foster the social participation of older adults at risk of marginalization and social exclusion. Using 61 keywords in 6 databases, a scoping review identified 24 studies that assessed the influence of interventions on older adults’ social participation, isolation, loneliness, social interactions, and social connectivity. While almost half of the interventions were individualized home-based, the others involved collective activities in the community. Most studies focused on older adults having low income, and only two studies documented interventions with older adults from minority groups of different gender identity or sexual orientation. Interpersonal relationships with peers, and free group activities based on older adults’ interests and life experience were identified as favoring social participation. Perceived isolation, lack of access to transportation and the diversity of older participants represented challenges to successful interventions. While some initiatives were promising, further studies are needed to better develop and evaluate these interventions including assess their efficacy for this population. Providing integrated knowledge on the current initiatives, this exploratory study is the first step towards better crafted interventions that support healthy aging and more inclusive societies.
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 | 0.024 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".