Dataset Information

Protocol for a scoping review on the methods for engaging long-term care residents with dementia in research and guideline development.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Patient engagement is important when developing health guidelines to ensure high-quality and patient-centred recommendations. However, patient engagement in research and guideline development remains suboptimal, particularly for vulnerable populations, including residents with dementia living in long-term care (LTC) who are often not included in research and guideline development because of perceived and actual challenges with their health, memory, concentration and communication. Optimal strategies and methods for engaging LTC residents with dementia in research and guideline development remain unknown.

Methods and analysis

We will conduct a scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension to answer the research questions: (1) What methods have been used to engage LTC residents with dementia in research and guideline development? (2) What are the outcomes of resident engagement? (3) What are the barriers and facilitators to resident engagement? Systematic searches for peer-reviewed articles will be conducted in: Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), APA PsycINFO (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), Medline (OVID), Embase (Elsevier), Web of Science, and Cochrane Database and in grey literature. Two team members will screen articles and extract data. Results will be presented according to the research question they address. We will engage stakeholders including residents, family members, healthcare providers and representatives from relevant organisations throughout the study.

Ethics and dissemination

The scoping review will synthesise what is known about resident engagement in research and guideline development. It may identify gaps in the literature about the optimal methods to engage residents in performing research and developing guidelines and reveal opportunities for new methods. The results will be helpful for researchers and policy-makers seeking to develop guidelines and researchers engaging in topics that reflect the priorities and experiences of people with dementia. Results of the scoping review will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations, and a one-page lay summary will be shared with our engaged stakeholders.

SUBMITTER: McArthur C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8388280 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionEvidence concerning the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions that are applied to people with dementia living in long-term care facilities is inconsistent. The purpose of this protocol is to describe the methodological considerations that will guide the completion of a scoping review that will inventorise and assess the effectiveness of the various non-pharmacological interventions that are documented in literature for improving quality of life of people with dementia living in long-term care.Methods and analysisThis scoping review will combine the methodology outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews and Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews by Peters et al. PubMed; MEDLINE; CINAHL; Embase; Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; Emcare; Sociological Abstracts and PsycINFO databases will be searched. Grey literature databases will also be explored. A two-stage screening process consisting of a title and abstract scan and a full-text review will be used to determine the eligibility of studies. Studies, irrespective of design, will be included that quantitatively assess quality of life of long-term care residents who receive non-pharmacological interventions for dementia. A pair of reviewers will independently assess all articles for eligibility, and all eligible articles will be abstracted and charted using a standardised form. The extracted data will undergo a 'narrative review' or a descriptive analysis of the contextual or process-oriented data and quantitative analysis reflecting the objectives of this scoping review.Ethics and disseminationResearch ethics approval is not required for this scoping review. This review started off in October 2018, anticipated end date is June 2020. We plan to disseminate this research through publications, presentations at relevant national and international conferences and meetings with relevant stakeholders. This scoping review protocol has been registered at Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/tupbv).

Project description:IntroductionSocial well-being is associated with better physical and mental health. It is also important for quality of life, including from the perspectives of those living in long-term care (LTC) homes. However, given the characteristics of the LTC home environment and the people who live there, the nature and influence of social integration and loneliness, and strategies to address them, may differ in this population compared with those living in the community. The objective of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the nature and extent of research on social integration and loneliness among LTC home residents, including a summary of how these concepts have been operationalised and any evidence from specific groups.Methods and analysisThis study protocol describes the methods of a scoping review of peer-reviewed literature related to social integration and loneliness among LTC home residents. A literature search was developed by an Information Specialist and will be conducted in MEDLINE(R) ALL (in Ovid, including Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE(R) Daily) and then translated into CINAHL (EBSCO), PsycINFO (Ovid), Scopus, Sociological Abstracts (Proquest), Embase and Embase Classic (Ovid), Emcare Nursing (Ovid) and AgeLine (EBSCO). Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts of articles identified in the search. Two reviewers will then independently review full text articles for inclusion. Data extraction will also be carried out in duplicate. We will engage LTC home community members, including residents, family and staff, to refine the review questions, assist in interpreting the results and participate in knowledge translation.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. We will present findings at conferences and publish in a peer-reviewed journal. Ultimately, we hope to inform future observational and interventional research aimed at improving the health and quality of life of LTC home residents.

Project description:IntroductionThe positive influence of a well-designed built environment in dementia-specific care has been known for several years. Many studies focusing on the built environment have captured the perspectives of people living with dementia. However, it remains unclear to what degree and with which methods these individuals have been actively involved in research especially when attempting to understand their perspective. The planned scoping review aims to (1) synthesise methods and results from research about the built environment according to active involvement of people living with dementia and (2) describe facilitators and barriers to this active involvement to capture their perspectives in research.Methods and analysisWe will use four search strategies: (1) searches in academic databases MEDLINE via PubMed, CINAHL and APA PsycINFO via EBSCO, and Scopus; (2) grey literature searches via Google Scholar; (3) handsearches of non-academic environmental planning and design journals and (4) identifying other publications of key authors in the field. Additionally, backward and forward citation tracking will be performed via reference lists and Google Scholar, respectively. Relevant literature published between 2013 and 2023 will be identified for data extraction and synthesis. One researcher will perform each strategy. Title-abstract/full text-screening will be conducted using Covidence by two researchers. Results will be displayed in a table and through figures illustrating identified facilitators and barriers.Ethics and disseminationWe raised no ethical concerns for the planned scoping review. We will prepare the findings including the identified barriers with long-term care practitioners from our network to identify how changes in practical application methods can be addressed. This dialogue can serve as a basis for including people living with dementia to discuss highlighted barriers when researching their perspectives on the built environment. The scoping review results will be reported in both academic and non-academic journals and at academic conferences.

Project description:ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to partner with stakeholders to identify gaps in care for persons living with dementia and their family caregivers and from this list, identify priorities for dementia care research.MethodsUsing a community-engaged research approach, a Stakeholder Advisory Council (SAC) consisting of diverse membership including persons living with dementia and family caregivers was convened. Through our work with the SAC, along with input from the wider network through a symposium, webinars, and an online learning community, gaps in dementia care and a list of topics for dementia care research was generated. This list was reduced to 46 topics for dementia care research and sent to stakeholders (persons living with dementia, family caregivers, and health/social care professionals in dementia care) to be prioritized by rating each of the 46 topics as "Not so important," "Important," or "Very important." Priorities for dementia care were summarized by frequencies and proportions.ResultsA total of 186 participants completed the survey from August through October 2020, including 23 (12.4%) persons living with dementia, 101 (54.3%) family caregivers, and 62 (33.3%) health/social care professionals. Consistent across stakeholder groups was the focus on research on how best to support families following a diagnosis of dementia. Among persons living with dementia, research focused on support for continuing to live in their own homes was ranked as the highest priority, rated by 91.3% as "Very Important". High priority research areas for family caregivers included interventions to slow cognitive decline (76.3%) as well as non-pharmacological approaches to manage behavioral symptoms (74.7%). The highest priority research topics for health/social care professionals were focused on the diagnosis including benefits of an early diagnosis (71.4%), how best to deliver the diagnosis (70.9%), and supports needed following a diagnosis (78.6%).ConclusionsThis project draws on the strengths of its multi-stakeholder perspective to support patient-centered outcomes research. Findings are intended to inform those who conduct research and those who fund research about which research topics stakeholders believe are most important and thus have greatest potential to improve the quality of life among people living with dementia and their families.

Project description:BackgroundAs researchers and implementors begin to acknowledge the repercussions of institutionalized colonialism on community and individual health, the need to decolonize research has become clear. Despite this, there is neither a singular definition of decolonizing methodologies nor an overview of the shared principles and characteristics of decolonized research needed to codify this work as common practice in global health.ObjectiveThe review will identify papers that reference principles of decolonization and identify shared characteristics between them. The aim of this scoping review is to review decolonized research methodologies through the lens of sexual health as a step in creating a shared understanding of best practices. We will further examine the tools and methods used to collect and analyze data within the included studies.MethodsThe protocol for this scoping review was developed using the framework from the Joanna Briggs Institute and the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews). The search strategy will comprise a search of electronic databases (JSTOR, Embase, EMCare, MEDLINE [Ovid], Global Health Database, Web of Science), gray literature sources, and key studies. Titles and abstracts will be reviewed by 2 or more independent reviewers against inclusion criteria. Bibliometric details, study design, methodology, community involvement, and other indicators will be collected using a data extraction tool developed for this review. Extracted data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis of content and themes to identify common practices in decolonized methodologies within sexual health. Narrative summaries will be used to describe results in relation to the research question, and identified gaps will be discussed.ResultsThe initial title or abstract review of 4967 studies identified by the search strategy was completed in November 2022. In total, 1777 studies met initial inclusion criteria and were sent to a second round of title or abstract review, which was completed in January 2023. In total, 706 studies were downloaded for full-text inclusion, which is expected to be completed by April 2023. We aim to complete data extraction and analysis by May 2023 and expect to publish the findings by the end of July 2023.ConclusionsThere remains a gap in the research on the meaning and application of decolonized research strategies, particularly within sexual and reproductive health. The findings of this study will contribute to a shared definition of decolonized methodologies and how they can be applied as a common practice in global health research. Applications include the development of decolonized frameworks, theoretical discourses, and methodologies. The study will inform the design and implementation of future decolonized research and evaluation strategies, particularly around sexual and reproductive health.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/45771.

Project description:ObjectiveCurrent information on opioid use in nursing home residents, particularly those with dementia, is unknown. We examined the temporal trends in opioid use by dementia severity and the association of dementia severity with opioid use in long-term care nursing home residents.DesignRepeated measures cross-sectional study.SettingLong-term care nursing homes.ParticipantsUsing 20% Minimum Data Set (MDS) and Medicare claims from 2011-2017, we included long-term care residents (n = 734,739) from each year who had 120 days of consecutive stay. In a secondary analysis, we included residents who had an emergency department visit for a fracture (n = 12,927).MeasurementsDementia was classified as no, mild, moderate, and severe based on the first MDS assessment each year. In the 120 days of nursing home stay, opioid use was measured as any, prolonged (>90 days), and high-dose (≥90 morphine milligram equivalent dose/day). For residents with a fracture, opioid use was measured within 7 days after emergency department discharge. Association of dementia severity with opioid use was evaluated using logistic regression.ResultsOverall, any opioid use declined by 8.5% (35.2% to 32.2%, P < .001), prolonged use by 5.0% (14.1% to 13.4%, P < .001), and high-dose by 21.4% (1.4% to 1.1%, P < .001) from 2011 to 2017. Opioid use declined across 4 dementia severity groups. Among residents with fracture, opioid use declined by 9% in mild, 9.5% in moderate, and 12.3% in severe dementia. The odds of receiving any, prolonged, and high-dose opioids decreased with increasing severity of dementia. For example, severe dementia reduced the odds of any [23.5% vs 47.6%; odds ratio (OR) 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.57], prolonged (9.8% vs 20.7%; OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.67-0.71), and high-dose (1.0% vs 2.3%; OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.63-0.74) opioids.Conclusions and implicationsUse of opioids declined in nursing home residents from 2011 to 2017, and the use was lower in residents with dementia, possibly reflecting suboptimal pain management in this population.