Dataset Information

Instruments for assessing the preferences for everyday living of older people with various care needs: protocol for an evidence map.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Consideration of the preferences for everyday living of older people with various care needs is a prerequisite for person-centred and evidence-based nursing care. Knowledge of and respect for these preferences by nursing staff are associated with better care outcomes for older people with various care needs. To assess preferences in a structured way, instruments focusing on different topics of everyday living appear to be useful. It is unclear which instruments exist for assessing preferences for everyday living. The aim of this planned review is to identify relevant instruments for assessing the preferences for everyday living of older people with various care needs in the form of an evidence map. Additionally, gaps requiring further research will be presented.

Methods and analysis

To identify the different instruments, we will conduct a systematic search in the electronic databases MEDLINE (via PubMed), CINAHL and PsycINFO (via EBSCO). In addition, we will perform backward and forward citation tracking via reference lists and Google Scholar. The identified records will be independently screened (title/abstract and full text) by two reviewers. Data from the included studies will be extracted independently by the same two reviewers. In all three steps, the results will be checked for deviations, and if there are any deviations, they will be discussed. If no consensus can be achieved through discussion, a third reviewer will be engaged. All study designs will be included, and there will be no limitations regarding the publication status or time period. We will include all studies published in English and German that use instruments focusing on the assessment of preferences for everyday living in people older than 60 years of age with various care needs. For data charting, we will extract the number, categories and types of preferences, the care setting for which the instrument was developed and, if available, psychometric properties. Finally, the various extracted results will be presented in the form of tables and a bubble plot.

Ethics and dissemination

There are no ethical concerns related to the construction of an evidence map, and ethical approval was given by the Witten/Herdecke University (application number 226/2020). We will discuss our results with practitioners in the field of nursing care and persons with various care needs. We will also make our results available to practitioners in an upcoming Project (PELI-D II) and to the public at (inter)national conferences and in the form of practice and peer-reviewed articles.

SUBMITTER: Rommerskirch-Manietta M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8424836 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Considering the real-world experiences of those with cognitive impairments is important in building a positive community for older people. Community-based participatory research is an important methodology for investigators focused on improving community health. The aim of this study was to 1) investigate factors associated with the continuation of community dwelling among high-risk older people and 2) to create a model of an inclusive community space for older people in the largest housing complex district in Tokyo. METHODS:From 198 residents who completed all three steps (mail, face-to-face, and home-visit) of a previous large-scale epidemiological survey, we identified 66 residents who were at high-risk of moving out of the community. These participants underwent 6 months of regular assessments by experienced researchers to identify the factors associated with continuing to live in the community. We also employed a community action approach to develop a community space for residents in the study district where more than two researchers who were medical professionals served as staff. The services offered by the space were continuously improved according to user feedback. The function of this center was evaluated during interdisciplinary research meetings. RESULTS:After 6 months, among the 66 high-risk residents, 49 people were living in the community and 12 people had moved out of the community. Those who could not continue to live in the community had greater unmet needs in terms of social support, especially daily living support and housing support. In addition, their families perceived a heavier burden of care. Interestingly, dementia diagnosis via the DSM-5, clinical dementia rating, physical health, mental health, and long-term care usage did not predict the outcome. Through discussions with guests, we equipped the space with various services such as coordination of community care and networking with existing organizations. CONCLUSIONS:Merely providing healthcare and long-term care might not be sufficient to support community living in people with cognitive impairments. Daily living support and housing support should be provided in the context of a broad health services package. For this purpose, creating a comfortable community space for residents and community workers is essential.

Project description:Metaphors are often used to describe cancer experiences (e.g., battle, journey). Few studies explore how social threats (e.g., discrimination) shape metaphor preferences. We examined the relationship between discrimination and preferences for cancer battle metaphors (i.e., concrete, action-based) versus journey metaphors (i.e., open-ended, reflective) and mediating effects of needs for personal significance and cognitive closure. We also stratified the analysis when discrimination was/was not attributed to race and by racial/ethnic group. Four-hundred twenty-seven U.S. participants completed an online survey. Items included everyday discrimination, need for personal significance, need for cognitive closure, and preference for cancer scenarios using battle or journey metaphors. Multigroup structural equation modeling examined: serial mediation (i.e., discrimination predicting metaphor preference via needs for personal significance and cognitive closure) stratified by discrimination attribution; and single mediation (i.e., discrimination predicting need for cognitive closure via need for personal significance) stratified by racial/ethnic group. Discrimination was associated with battle metaphor preferences through serial mediation when discrimination was not attributed to race (β = 0.02, 95% CI [0.01,0.05]). Discrimination was directly associated with journey metaphor preferences (β = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.37,-0.06]) and the serial mediation was nonsignificant when discrimination was attributed to race. The single mediation model varied across racial/ethnic groups and was strongest for Non-Hispanic White participants (β = 0.17, 95% CI [0.07,0.30]). Discrimination may shape cancer metaphor preferences through needs for personal significance and cognitive closure, yet these relationships differ based on whether discrimination is attributed to race and racial/ethnic group. Given that the U.S. health system often focuses on battle metaphors when framing cancer treatment and screenings, individuals who prefer journey metaphors (i.e., those who experienced more frequent racial discrimination in the present study) may experience a systematic disadvantage in cancer communication. A more careful consideration of cultural, racial, and ethnic differences in metaphor use may be a crucial step towards reducing cancer disparities.

Project description:BackgroundOlder people living with HIV (PLWH) are at increased risks of co-morbidities and polypharmacy. However, little is known about factors affecting their needs and concerns about medicines. This systematic review aims to describe these and to identify interventions to improve medicine optimisation outcomes in older PLWH.Methods and data sourcesMultiple databases and grey literature were searched from inception to February 2022 including MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, PsychArticles, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, Abstracts in Social Gerontology, and Academic Search Complete.Eligibility criteriaStudies reporting interventions/issues affecting older PLWH (sample populations with mean/median age ≥ 50 years; any aspect of medicine optimisation, or concerns). Quality assessments were completed by means of critical appraisal checklists for each study design. Title and abstract screening was led by one reviewer and a sample reviewed independently by two reviewers. Full-paper reviews were completed by one author and a 20% sample was reviewed independently by two reviewers.SynthesisData were extracted by three independent reviewers using standardised data extraction forms and synthesised according to outcomes or interventions reported. Data were summarised to include key themes, outcomes or concerns, and summary of intervention.ResultsSeventy-nine (n = 79) studies met the eligibility criteria, most of which originated from the USA (n = 36). A few studies originated from Australia (n = 5), Canada (n = 5), Spain (n = 9), and the UK (n = 5). Ten studies originated from Sub-Saharan Africa (Kenya n = 1, South Africa n = 6, Tanzania n = 1, Uganda n = 1, Zimbabwe n = 1). The rest of the studies were from China (n = 1), France (n = 1), Germany (n = 1), Italy (n = 1), the Netherlands (n = 1), Pakistan (n = 1), Switzerland (n = 1), Saudi Arabia (n = 1) and Ukraine (n = 1). Publication dates ranged from 2002 to 2022. Sample sizes ranged from 10 to 15,602 across studies. The factors affecting older PLWH's experience of and issues with medicines were co-morbidities, health-related quality of life, polypharmacy, drug interactions, adverse drug reactions, adherence, medicine burden, treatment burden, stigma, social support, and patient-healthcare provider relationships. Nine interventions were identified to target older persons, five aimed at improving medication adherence, two to reduce drug interactions, and two for medicine self-management initiatives.ConclusionFurther in-depth research is needed to understand older PLWH's experiences of medicines and their priority issues. Adherence-focused interventions are predominant, but there is a scarcity of interventions aimed at improving medicine experiences for this population. Multi-faceted interventions are needed to achieve medicine optimisation outcomes for PLWH.Trial registrationThis study is registered with PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020188448.