Interventions supporting the translation of gerontological evidence into practice to optimize functional outcomes for hospitalized older adults: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hospitalized older adults are at risk for both physical and cognitive functional decline. To support the implementation of interventions optimizing their function, both healthcare professional knowledge and other factors that may impact practice change should be addressed. The objective of this study was to examine the characteristics and type of interventions supporting the translation of gerontological evidence into practice to optimize functional outcomes for hospitalized older adults. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This scoping review used the guidelines recommended by Peters et al. Six electronic databases were searched from database inception to 2024. Included studies were primary research studies that 1) described an educational intervention for healthcare professionals as part of an initiative to promote practice change and 2) assessed functional outcomes (physical and/or cognitive). RESULTS: Thirty-eight studies were deemed eligible. Numerous interventions to support implementation of knowledge to improve functional outcomes were identified. In addition to educational strategies, other interventions addressed care processes, changes to the built environment, administration/management support, leadership support/facilitation, and discharge/transition planning. Studies employed a range of measures to assess functional outcomes among hospitalized older adults. DISCUSSION: Older studies tended to focus on nurse-driven interventions, and newer ones on interprofessional interventions. Knowledge gaps were highlighted in terms of theory, research designs, intervention descriptions, country representation, policy, environmental changes, and leadership roles. Future evaluations of interventions to enhance older adults' functioning should examine effectiveness and compare single- and multi-intervention programs. Strategies based on implementation science theory are needed to ensure successful uptake of effective interventions, while also addressing real-world issues in hospital units, such as short staffing, resource constraints, and overcrowding.
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 | 0.056 | 0.220 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".