Exploring the hospitalisation experience of racialised older adults and caregivers living with dementia: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Racialised older adults living with dementia face various challenges and barriers in receiving culturally sensitive care in hospital settings. Stigma, discrimination and healthcare provider bias toward racialised older adults living with dementia infringe on their right to access quality care services in acute hospital settings and can negatively affect their quality of life. Despite the growing need to integrate culturally sensitive dementia care into acute hospital care, little research has been done in this area. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review is to summarise and map what is known about the hospitalisation experience of racialised older adults with dementia in receiving care and identify research gaps. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: We will use Arksey and O'Malley's framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist to conduct and write the review. The search strategy will use keywords and index terms across selected databases: Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, Medline, PsycINFO and Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and hand-searching the reference lists from chosen literature. Grey literature will be searched using Google and the Alzheimer Society websites to find further evidence and literature. Two researchers will screen the titles and abstracts independently by referring to the inclusion criteria. Data from the extracted studies will be reported in tabular and narrative form that answer the scoping review's questions. Research gaps and recommendations for future research will be identified and summarised. The review's results will be shared with stakeholders, policymakers, healthcare professionals and community organisations working with the racialised community and dementia care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review does not require ethics approval because it collects data from publicly available resources. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scientific journals, professional conferences and with community organisations and healthcare providers. REGISTRATION DETAILS: .
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 | 0.105 | 0.081 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.011 |
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".