Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26500053›Full record

ReviewHealth & social care in the community2017

Gaps in the evidence on improving social care outcomes: findings from a meta-review of systematic reviews.

Kelly Dickson, Katy Sutcliffe, Rebecca Rees, James Thomas

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health & social care in the community, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kelly DicksonEvidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, London, UK.
Katy SutcliffeEvidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, London, UK.
Rebecca ReesEvidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, London, UK.
James ThomasEvidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre), Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adult social care continues to be a central policy concern in the UK. The Adult Social Care Outcomes Framework (ASCOF) is a range of measures nationally available to drive forward improvement on outcomes and quality in local councils. While there is an emphasis on improving transparency, quality and outcomes, drawing on research evidence to achieve these aims is often difficult because the evidence is not easily identifiable, is disparate or of variable quality. We conducted a meta-review to analyse and summarise systematic review-level evidence on the impact of interventions on the four outcomes set out in the ASCOF: quality of life, delaying and reducing the need for services, satisfaction with services and safeguarding of vulnerable adults. This paper focuses on the availability of review-level evidence and the presence of significant gaps in this evidence base. A range of health and social care databases were searched, including MEDLINE, ASSIA and The Cochrane Library in January and February 2012. All systematic reviews evaluating the efficacy of social care interventions for improving ASCOF outcomes for older people, people with long-term conditions, mental health problems or physical and/or learning disabilities were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened systematic reviews for quality and relevance and extracted data; 43 systematic reviews were included, the majority of which examined the impact of interventions on quality of life (n = 34) and delaying and reducing the need for support (n = 25). Limited systematic review-level evidence was found regarding satisfaction with services and safeguarding. There were also significant gaps in relation to key social care interventions and population groups. Research priorities include addressing these gaps and the collation of data on interventions, outcomes and populations more closely related to social care. Overall, a more relevant, comprehensive and robust evidence base is required to support improvement of outcomes for recipients of adult social care.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionPersons with DisabilitiesQuality of LifeSystematic Reviews as TopicAdultAgedChronic DiseaseExerciseHumansMental HealthMiddle AgedSocial ParticipationSocial SupportSocial WorkUnited KingdomVulnerable Populationsevaluating complex interventionshealth and social carepolicy researchquality of lifetrials

Identifiers

PMID26500053
PMCPMC5484323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.