Immigrant older adults’ perceived acceptability of interventions for social isolation: A mixed methods study protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Immigrant older adults in Canada face unique post-migration challenges and barriers that place them at significant risk of social isolation. Evidence-based interventions exist that address the determinants of social isolation, but it is unclear whether these are acceptable to immigrant older adults in Canada. Acceptability is known to influence the uptake and engagement of and adherence to interventions. This paper presents a protocol for a proposed study that will examine the acceptability of selected evidence-based interventions and explore modifications that may be required to enhance their cultural appropriateness. Methods: A mixed-method – concurrent quantitative and qualitative – design will be used. Immigrant older adults from nine Canadian cities will be recruited if they are 60 years of age or older, self-identify as belonging to the Arabic, Mandarin, and Punjabi-speaking immigrant communities, live in the community, and be able to provide informed consent. The total sample size will be 600 to 800. Participants will be informed of each intervention; asked to rate its acceptability using 5 items adapted from the Treatment Acceptability and Preference instrument; and invited to participate in a semi-structured interview to explore their perspectives on cultural appropriateness and possible modifications needed to enhance the acceptability of each intervention. Descriptive statistics will be used to analyze acceptability ratings. Interviews will be audio-recorded with consent, translated into English when needed and transcribed, and content analyzed. Interventions with rating scores > 2 and qualitative comments indicating their fit with participants’ beliefs and values will be considered acceptable. Results: The project is in its initial stage of data collection. Conclusions: Results will help clarify which of the selected interventions are acceptable and what modifications they may require before evaluating them for their effectiveness in reducing social isolation, and fostering social connectedness among Arabic, Mandarin, and Punjabi-speaking immigrant older adults in Canada.
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 | 0.103 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.007 |
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".