Approaches to Enhancing and Sustaining Engagement in Post-Retirement Work: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: With an aging population and growing economic hardship for many older adults, post-retirement work is increasingly common but often challenging due to complex, intersecting factors. This scoping review aims to identify key barriers and facilitators to post-retirement work. Methods: We searched APA PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science for peer-reviewed studies (2000–2025) on post-retirement work among adults aged 50–80. Eligible studies underwent two rounds of screening and risk of bias assessment. Results: Fifty-two studies were included in this scoping review. Four key themes emerged: (1) social factors, (2) health-related factors, (3) workplace factors, and (4) financial factors. Barriers and facilitators included health status, discrimination, job conditions, financial stability, policy support, social networks, and personal fulfillment. Discussion: Post-retirement work is shaped by diverse factors with important policy implications. Future research should examine underrepresented groups and regional differences.
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 | 0.015 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".