Reasons for the Place of Care of the Elders: A Systematic Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Relocation is a very important event in people's lives in general, but really significant in old age. However, some predictors of relocation still need to be improved. The objective of this review was to synthesize qualitative evidence to understand the reasons of the participants to decide on the place of care of the older people.Methods
Systematic review of qualitative studies was conducted in six databases: Scopus, SciELO, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science and CINAHL, from its beginning until 29 November 2017. Qualitative or mixed studies, written in English or Spanish and addressing the decision-making process (already experienced by participants) on the place of care of older persons (65 years or older), were included in the review. PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42018084826).Results
A total of 46 articles were finally included in the analysis. Our main result is the distinction of multiple reasons for each population group involved in the decision-making process, ranking these reasons into three factors: Retention, pull and push.Conclusion
This differentiation allows for a more detailed and in-depth analysis of the motivations of the different groups involved in this process.
SUBMITTER: Serrano-Gemes G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7712302 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Reasons for the Place of Care of the Elders: A Systematic Review.
Serrano-Gemes Gema G Rich-Ruiz Manuel M Serrano-Del-Rosal Rafael R
Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) 20201027 4
<h4>Background</h4>Relocation is a very important event in people's lives in general, but really significant in old age. However, some predictors of relocation still need to be improved. The objective of this review was to synthesize qualitative evidence to understand the reasons of the participants to decide on the place of care of the older people.<h4>Methods</h4>Systematic review of qualitative studies was conducted in six databases: Scopus, SciELO, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science and CINAHL ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness of acute geriatric unit care, based on all or part of the Acute Care for Elders (ACE) model and introduced in the acute phase of illness or injury, with that of usual care.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of 13 randomized controlled and quasi-experimental trials with parallel comparison groups retrieved from multiple sources.SettingAcute care geriatric and nongeriatric hospital units.ParticipantsAcutely ill or injured adults (N = 6,839) with an average age of 81.InterventionsAcute geriatric unit care characterized by one or more ACE components: patient-centered care, frequent medical review, early rehabilitation, early discharge planning, prepared environment.MeasurementsFalls, pressure ulcers, delirium, functional decline at discharge from baseline 2-week prehospital and hospital admission statuses, length of hospital stay, discharge destination (home or nursing home), mortality, costs, and hospital readmissions.ResultsAcute geriatric unit care was associated with fewer falls (risk ratio (RR) = 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.29-0.88), less delirium (RR = 0.73, 95% CI = 0.61-0.88), less functional decline at discharge from baseline 2-week prehospital admission status (RR = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.78-0.97), shorter length of hospital stay (weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.61, 95% CI = -1.16 to -0.05), fewer discharges to a nursing home (RR = 0.82, 95% CI = 0.68-0.99), lower costs (WMD = -$245.80, 95% CI = -$446.23 to -$45.38), and more discharges to home (RR = 1.05, 95% CI = 1.01-1.10). A nonsignificant trend toward fewer pressure ulcers was observed. No differences were found in functional decline between baseline hospital admission status and discharge, mortality, or hospital readmissions.ConclusionAcute geriatric unit care, based on all or part of the ACE model and introduced during the acute phase of older adults' illness or injury, improves patient- and system-level outcomes.
| S-EPMC3557720 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Systematic reviews, which were developed to improve policy-making and clinical decision-making, answer an empirical question based on a minimally biased appraisal of all the relevant empirical studies. A model is presented here for writing systematic reviews of argument-based literature: literature that uses arguments to address conceptual questions, such as whether abortion is morally permissible or whether research participants should be legally entitled to compensation for sustaining research-related injury. Such reviews aim to improve ethically relevant decisions in healthcare, research or policy. They are better tools than informal reviews or samples of literature with respect to the identification of the reasons relevant to a conceptual question, and they enable the setting of agendas for conceptual and empirical research necessary for sound policy-making. This model comprises prescriptions for writing the systematic review's review question and eligibility criteria, the identification of the relevant literature, the type of data to extract on reasons and publications, and the derivation and presentation of results. This paper explains how to adapt the model to the review question, literature reviewed and intended readers, who may be decision-makers or academics. Obstacles to the model's application are described and addressed, and limitations of the model are identified.
| S-EPMC3262986 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The objective of this review was to understand how participants experience the decision-making process regarding the place of care for the elderly. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of qualitative studies. The articles were included if they were original studies with qualitative/mixed methodology, written in English/Spanish, and that approached the decision-making process regarding the place of care for the elderly, already experienced by the participants. Forty-four articles were included, identifying experiences, both negative and positive. Negative experiences have been the most frequently reported experiences by all population groups; fear was the most relevant experience for the elderly, whereas concern was the most relevant for family members and professionals. This review has not only found a great variability of experiences, but also, it has deepened the differences between groups and the situations motivating/generating these experiences. This review highlights a wide range of experiences of those directly involved in the entire decision-making process on the place of care for the elderly. In future research it would be interesting to carry out qualitative primary studies conducted with professionals and other relevant people involved in this decision-making process, in order to know first-hand how they experience this process.
| S-EPMC7921973 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveMost tooth extractions are performed for dental reasons, but there are also nondental and nonmedical reasons for extractions; these include psychological, financial, religious, and cultural reasons as well as simply granting a patient's request. This systematic review was performed to examine the proportion and range of indications associated with tooth removal in context of dental, nondental, and medical reasons.MethodsA search conducted using PubMed, Embase, and APA PsycINFO identified 6038 studies. Three studies (4396 extractions in total) could be included for the risk of bias assessment and qualitative data synthesis.ResultsThe reported indications for tooth extraction on dental and medical grounds included caries with the proportion of all extractions ranging from 36.0% to 55.3%, periodontitis from 24.8% to 38.1%, trauma from 0.8% to 4.4%, periapical disease from 7.3% to 19.1%, orthodontics from 2.5% to 7.2%, and other reasons from 4.5% to 9.2%. The proportion for patient requests ranged from 3.6% to 5.9%, but specific information regarding the actual reasons for extraction could not be determined.ConclusionThe results suggest that caries and periodontitis are the most common indications for tooth extraction and that studies to reliably estimate the incidence of nondental and nonmedical motivation for extraction are lacking. Given that the final decision on performing or refusing extractions, whether it be based on dental, nondental, or nonmedical reasons, largely rests with the dentist and oral surgeon, detailed guidelines are warranted.
| S-EPMC9275356 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe number of market approvals of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) has been increasing steadily in the last 3 decades. While OMPs can offer a unique chance for patients suffering from rare diseases, they are usually very expensive. The growing number of approved OMPs increases their budget impact despite their low prevalence, making it pressing to find solutions to ethical challenges on how to fairly allocate scarce healthcare resources under this context. One potential solution could be to grant OMPs special status when considering them for reimbursement, meaning that they are subject to different, and less stringent criteria than other drugs. This study aims to provide a systematic analysis of moral reasons for and against such a special status for the reimbursement of OMPs in publicly funded healthcare systems from a multidisciplinary perspective.ResultsWith a systematic review of reasons, we identified 39 reasons represented in 243 articles (scientific and grey literature) for and against special status for the reimbursement of OMPs, then categorized them into nine topics. Taking a multidisciplinary perspective, we found that most articles came from health policy (n = 103) and health economics (n = 49). More articles took the position for a special status of OMPs (n = 97) than those against it (n = 31) and there was a larger number of reasons identified in favour (29 reasons) than against (10 reasons) this special status.ConclusionResults suggest that OMP reimbursement issues should be assessed and analysed from a multidisciplinary perspective. Despite the higher occurrence of reasons and articles in favour of a special status, there is no clear-cut solution for this ethical challenge. The binary perspective of whether or not OMPs should be granted special status oversimplifies the issue: both OMPs and rare diseases are too heterogeneous in their characteristics for such a binary perspective. Thus, the scientific debate should focus less on the question of disease prevalence but rather on how the important variability of different OMPs concerning e.g. target population, cost-effectiveness, level of evidence or mechanism of action could be meaningfully addressed and implemented in Health Technology Assessments.
| S-EPMC8247078 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is a global shortage of health providers in abortion care. Public discourse presents abortion providers as dangerous and greedy and links 'conscience' with refusal to participate. This may discourage provision. A scoping review of empirical evidence is needed to inform public perceptions of the reasons that health providers participate in abortion.ObjectiveThe study aimed to identify what is known about health providers' reasons for participating in abortion provision.Eligibility criteriaStudies were eligible if they included health providers' reasons for participating in legal abortion provision. Only empirical studies were eligible for inclusion.Sources of evidenceWe searched the following databases from January 2000 until January 2022: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ScienceDirect and Centre for Agricultural and Biosciences International Abstracts. Grey literature was also searched.MethodsDual screening was conducted of both title/abstract and full-text articles. Health providers' reasons for provision were extracted and grouped into preliminary categories based on the existing research. These categories were revised by all authors until they sufficiently reflected the extracted data.ResultsFrom 3251 records retrieved, 68 studies were included. In descending order, reasons for participating in abortion were as follows: supporting women's choices and advocating for women's rights (76%); being professionally committed to participating in abortion (50%); aligning with personal, religious or moral values (39%); finding provision satisfying and important (33%); being influenced by workplace exposure or support (19%); responding to the community needs for abortion services (14%) and participating for practical and lifestyle reasons (8%).ConclusionAbortion providers participated in abortion for a range of reasons. Reasons were mainly focused on supporting women's choices and rights; providing professional health care; and providing services that aligned with the provider's own personal, religious or moral values. The findings provided no evidence to support negative portrayals of abortion providers present in public discourse. Like conscientious objectors, abortion providers can also be motivated by conscience.
| S-EPMC10908244 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose of the studyTo systematically review cost, cost-minimization and cost-effectiveness studies for assisted living technologies (ALTs) that specifically enable older people to 'age in place' and highlight what further research is needed to inform decisions regarding aging in place.DesignPeople aged 65+ and their live-in carers (where applicable), using an ALT to age in place at home opposed to a community-dwelling arrangement.MethodsStudies were identified using a predefined search strategy on two key economic and cost evaluation databases NHS EED, HEED. Studies were assessed using methods recommended by the Campbell and Cochrane Economic Methods Group and presented in a narrative synthesis style.ResultsEight eligible studies were identified from North America spread over a diverse geographical range. The majority of studies reported the ALT intervention group as having lower resource use costs than the control group; though the low methodological quality and heterogeneity of the individual costs and outcomes reported across studies must be considered.ImplicationsThe studies suggest that in some cases ALTs may reduce costs, though little data were identified and what there were was of poor quality. Methods to capture quality of life gains were not used, therefore potential effects on health and wellbeing may be missed. Further research is required using newer developments such as the capabilities approach. High quality studies assessing the cost-effectiveness of ALTs for ageing in place are required before robust conclusion on their use can be drawn.
| S-EPMC4109953 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesThere is a growing interest to involve older adults in the co-design of technology to maintain their well-being and independence. What remains unknown is whether the beneficial effects of co-designed solutions are greater than those reported for non co-designed solutions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects and experiences of co-designed technology that support older adults to age in place.Research design and methodsWe conducted a systematic review to (a) investigate the health and well-being outcomes of co-designed technology for older adults (≥60 years), (b) identify co-design approaches and contexts where they are applied, and (c) identify barriers and facilitators of the co-design process with older adults. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Science Citation Index (Web of Science), Scopus, OpenGrey, and Business Source Premiere.ResultsWe identified 14,649 articles and included 34 projects. Four projects reported health and well-being outcomes; the effects were inconsistent. Co-design processes varied greatly and in their intensity of older adult involvement. Common facilitators of and barriers to co-design included the building of relationships between stakeholders, stakeholder knowledge of problems and solutions, and expertise in the co-design methodology.Discussion and implicationsThe effect of co-designed technology on health and well-being was rarely studied and it was difficult to ascertain its impact. Future co-design efforts need to address barriers unique to older adults. Evaluation of the impact of co-designed technologies is needed and standardization of the definition of co-design would be helpful to researchers and designers.
| S-EPMC8437501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The purpose of this research study is to explore ways to improve appropriate colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in the elderly by attempting to target screening in those most likely to benefit and avoiding screening in those least likely to benefit.
| 2123633 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:BackgroundUnfinished Nursing Care (UNC) has been documented also during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic; however, while several secondary studies were conducted before this period to summarise occurrences, reasons, and consequences of UNC and provide a global picture of the phenomenon, no synthesis of the evidence produced during the pandemic has been documented to date. Therefore, the aim of this review is to identify differences, if any, in the UNC occurrence, reasons, and consequences perceived by nurses caring for COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients.MethodsThis study is a systematic review (PROSPERO CRD42023410602). According to the Population, Exposure, Comparator, and Outcomes framework, primary comparative cross-sectional, longitudinal, and cohort studies, randomised/non-randomised controlled trials were included from Medline, CINAHL, and Scopus, collecting perceptions of nurses with tools measuring UNC between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients and published in English, Italian, or Turkish. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline and Johanna Briggs Quality Appraisal Tool were used, and findings were summarised narratively.ResultsFive hospital-based cross-sectional studies using the self-administered MISSCARE and UNC Survey comparing data collected (a) before the pandemic vs. in the first wave; (b) before, in the second and in the third wave; and (c) simultaneously among COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients in the second wave. Three main patterns emerged suggesting a higher UNC occurrence among COVID-19 patients in the first wave, less occurrence among them compared to non-COVID-19 patients in the second wave, and contrasting findings with some in favour and others in contrast to COVID-19 patients. Similar patterns emerged regarding UNC reasons while no studies investigated the UNC consequences.ConclusionsIn the first wave, COVID-19 patients were likely to be at increased risk of UNC, while in later waves non-COVID-19 patients were at increased risk of UNC. Reasons also were different across waves. Findings documented during the COVID-19 pandemic may help to prevent UNC in future disasters.
| S-EPMC10523650 | biostudies-literature