Extreme heat preparedness and coping among older adults: A rapid review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Extreme heat events are increasing in frequency, duration, and intensity owing to climate change. In light of older adults’ heightened risks of heat-related morbidity and mortality, this rapid review examines and updates current knowledge about their preparedness and coping behaviors for extreme heat. We searched six databases focused on aging, social sciences, and the environment for empirical studies published between 2010 and 2024 focused on extreme heat preparedness and coping strategies among older adults. After screening, we retained 41 articles for data extraction and quality assessment. We organized results according to the social-ecological model across individual actions and structural strategies (e.g., service delivery, residential care, and heat-related policy). Studies were primarily conducted in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, with fewer studies in low-and-middle-income countries. Most studies focused on individual coping methods, including hydration and cooling, environmental adjustments, and relocation. Seven studies examined social service delivery contexts, highlighting the importance of formalized health response plans to enhance service coordination, resource allocation, and information dissemination. The fewest number of studies examined heat-related policies, such as heat wave response plans, heat action plans, heat warning systems, and national heat plans. Findings from the rapid review suggest that community-engaged researchers and practitioners can effectively implement participatory planning with older adults and service providers to enhance risk awareness and improve communication among older adults and their support networks. Older adults, especially those who are socially isolated or resource-constrained, require special considerations in heat preparedness planning. Future research with older adults, particularly in low-and-middle-income countries, should be prioritized. Findings from this study inform practice and policy interventions, centering perspectives of older adults and their caregivers within the context of their living environments.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".