MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410859742 · doi:10.3390/disabilities5020049

Barriers and Facilitators to the Social Participation of Individuals Aging with a Long-Term Neurological Disability: A Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4410859742 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueDisabilities · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCerebral Palsy and Movement Disorders
Canadian institutionsHealth and Social Services Centre University Institute of Geriatrics of SherbrookeUniversité LavalUniversité de SherbrookeCentre for Interdisciplinary Research in Rehabilitation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerm (time)GerontologyLong-term carePsychologySocial engagementMedicinePhysical medicine and rehabilitationPsychiatrySociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Supporting the social participation of individuals aging with long-term neurological disabilities is key to healthy aging. However, knowledge about the factors influencing their social participation remains limited and fragmented. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, this scoping review synthesized and integrated knowledge regarding the barriers and facilitators to the social participation of individuals aging with long-term neuro-disabilities. A search in four databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and EMBASE) resulted in 18 studies involving 2587 participants with nine neurological conditions: stroke, multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, traumatic brain injury, aphasia, post-polio syndrome, spina bifida, cerebral palsy, and muscular dystrophy. A total of 38 barriers, 25 facilitators, and 4 factors with mixed influence to social participation were identified. Key reported barriers included the organic system (e.g., fatigue or pain) and macro environments (e.g., inaccessible built environment). The most common facilitators involved physical dimensions in personal factors (e.g., good physical functions) and micro-environments (e.g., supportive social environment). This review highlights the need for accessible infrastructure and community support to promote inclusivity and equity. Future research should focus on community-level factors and mixed study designs to provide robust evidence to improve social participation and healthy aging in this vulnerable population.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.417
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.342 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it