ArticleThe Gerontologist2025
Later life learning: what is it, and who is it for? A systematic scoping review of the "learning and health in later life" literature.
Article in The Gerontologist, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Late Life Learning, Cognition, and Aging: A Longitudinal study of middle and older-aged adults in Beirut, Lebanon (3LC study).medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesThere is growing evidence for the health benefits of later life learning (LLL). However, there is considerable variety in how LLL has been operationalized and/or measured across studies, making it difficult to determine what the active ingredients of LLL are. There may also be underrepresented groups of participants in this research. This scoping review aimed to map existing research on LLL and health in order to develop a classification framework for reporting LLL studies, and identify the demographic characteristics of participants included in this research. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsThe researchers systematically searched CINAHL, MedLine, PsycINFO, ERIC, Open Access Theses and Dissertations, and OpenGrey for empirical studies on LLL's effects on health outcomes.
resultsA total of 51 articles met the inclusion criteria. The extracted data were used to describe the studies according to a classification framework comprising eight core LLL dimensions: organizer, target audience, format, content, instruction method, age, duration, and frequency. Notable gaps were identified, including the underrepresentation of men and insufficient reporting on participants' education, marital status, socioeconomic status, and ethnicity. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The findings highlight inconsistencies in LLL's operationalization and/or measurement, alongside gaps in sociodemographic data reporting, that make it difficult to draw generalizable conclusions about the effects of LLL on health. The classification framework the researchers developed provides a tool to describe and synthesize findings across studies to better understand the mechanisms underlying LLL and health. Future research should also explore LLL's effects on older male learners who have been underrepresented in past research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.