1 Department of Political Science, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
2 Centre for Research and Expertise in Social Gerontology, Côte St-Luc, QC, Canada.
3 Simone de Beauvoir Institute, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
4 Department of Psychiatry and Neurosciences, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
5 Department of Psychology, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
6 Department of Sociology, Cégep de la Gaspésie et des Îles, Gaspé, QC, Canada.
7 School of Social Work, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.

Background and objectives: Coordination of governmental action is crowded with policies and programs that are highly interdependent, sometimes operating in silos if not contradicting each other. These dilemmas, or administrative quagmires, are heightened for older adults in general, but they are particularly problematic for marginalized older adults because these groups often require public assistance and support. This scoping review studies the coordination of governmental action on aging published in social science journals, focusing on six groups of marginalized older adults: those with histories of immigration, individuals with severe mental health problems, those who have had experiences of homelessness, formerly incarcerated individuals, members of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) community, and individuals living in a rural area.

Research design and methods: A five-stage scoping review methodology was followed, and 53 articles (published between 2000-2022) from five social science databases were analyzed.

Results: The analysis revealed a limited number of contributions with coordination as a primary focus. Understandings of coordination varied, but tended to examine structure, organization, and relationships between sectors. When coordination was the primary object of a study, it was often analysed in one specific policy area or within a clinical setting along the lines of facilitating care coordination.

Discussion and implications: This scoping review reveals a mutual neglect on the part of public administration and policy scholars towards marginalized older adults, and a lack of public administration considerations on the part of scholars studying long-term care and social service programs for these marginalized older adults.