Exploring the use of the Conical Model of Theoretical Framework for Mobility in Older adults in research and/or practice: A scoping review of literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This scoping review aims to map and describe the available studies that have used the Conical Model of Theoretical Framework for Mobility in older adults in policy development, clinical practice, and/or research. Introduction: Mobility and the ability for movement is essential for healthy aging as it forms a basis for meaningful social participation. However, older adults often face greater susceptibility to mobility limitations, such as performance deficits in walking, which puts them at higher risk of disability, falls, hospitalization, mortality, and poor quality of life. In addition to the expensive healthcare costs resulting from this increased risk, these limitations emphasize the growing need to explore the complexity associated with mobility. There are numerous definitions associated with mobility. The one followed in this scoping review is “the ability to move oneself (e.g., by walking, by using assistive devices, or by using transportation) within community environments that expand from one’s home, to the neighbourhood, and to regions beyond” (reference). The Conical Model of Theoretical Framework for Mobility in Older Adults, by Webber et al., stipulates that multifaceted factors, such as cognitive, environmental, financial, personal, physical, physiological, and social, may explain the complexity associated with mobility. When published, the framework is intended to drive interdisciplinary analysis of mobility from various perspectives and motivate new research directions while enhancing diagnostic and treatment practices in the clinical setting. However, the use of this model in policy development, clinical, and research practice has not been explored since its formation. Therefore, examining the use of this framework in clinical research and policies will be vital to highlighting its practicality and determining its ability to promote interdisciplinarity between professions to further explore the complexity of mobility. Inclusion criteria: The conical model was organized into (a) articles that use the model as their theoretical framework; (b) articles that tested the model using a data set; c) and articles that expanded the model. Exclusion criteria: Articles that cited the model in the introduction or discussion section without explicitly stating that the model informed their study or guided some aspect of their study will be excluded. Methods: This scoping review considers all research studies, grey literature, and mixed methods studies to analyze the mobility of older adults within and beyond their homes into the community (Webber et al. 2010). With consultation from a health science librarian, the preliminary search terms helped develop a comprehensive search that will be adapted for CINAHL (EBSCO), MEDLINE (OVID), Scopus, Embase, and PSYCInfo. Searches for relevant sources of grey literature will include searches of Google Scholar, Proquest&Theses A&I, Theses Canada. The article list will be reviewed by the corresponding author of the Conical model, Dr. Webber.
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 | 0.083 | 0.200 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.027 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".