We Are Forgotten: A Qualitative Descriptive Exploration of Social Inclusion-Exclusion Expectations and Experiences of Older Adults in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study extends existing literature on the balance of tangible and intangible support and services that older adults require for their social inclusion and dignified aging. The study makes a contribution to current literature on older adults’ social exclusion-inclusion in the context of Ghana from the lenses of critical gerontology, social exclusion theory, and human rights. A qualitative description approach was adopted, with a purposive sample of 18 older adults who provided data in individual interviews, and the data were analyzed thematically. Although Ghana has made some policy efforts at ensuring the well-being of older adults, findings of this study suggest that many older Ghanaians are forgotten, socially excluded, and falling through cracks in the social safety net. For their social inclusion, older adults require tangible and intangible forms of support that enable them achieve adequacy with basic needs, and social participation. An important form of tangible support older adults need is care, where they are provided with adequate food, clothing, housing, and income. Intangible forms of support that older adults need include guaranteeing them access to health care services where costs (of treatment, laboratory examination, or prescription medication) are not a structural barrier, and by supporting them with mobility and social and civic participation, where they participate in decision making, perform meaningful social roles, and have opportunities for social interactions. Policy and practice implications of the findings are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".