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 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 | 0.015 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".