MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7118127298 · doi:10.51819/jaltc.2025.1826908

COVID-19’s Non-visitor Policy and Its Impact on Social Isolation of Older Adults in Ontario Long-Term Care Homes: A Scoping Review

2025· article· W7118127298 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Angelina Falconi, Christina Saliba, Raza Mirza, Christopher Klinger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aging and Long-Term Care · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsSocial isolationVisitor patternSocial connectednessInclusion (mineral)PandemicIsolation (microbiology)Loneliness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments worldwide implemented strict non-visitor policies in long-term care (LTC) homes. As a result, older adults were often confined to their rooms and only “essential visitors” were allowed. Following Arksey and O’Malley’s framework and PRISMA-ScR guidelines, the goal was to examine the impact visitor restrictions had on social isolation of older adults in LTC homes in Ontario (Canada) as well as to make recommendations for further research, policy, and practice. Twenty-five articles that met inclusion criteria were reviewed. Themes identified included the impact visitor restrictions had on older adults residing in LTC as well as their ethical and legal implications. Pandemic policies should be assessed at the individual level with family members essential to resident’s care. Information and communication technology (ICT) was seen as crucial to support social connectedness in later life. While written from a Canadian perspective, implications reach globally.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.420
Teacher spread0.392 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Aging and Long-Term CareSame topicGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesFrench-language works237,207