Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29216836›Full record

SynthesisBMC geriatrics2017

Key stakeholders' experiences of respite services for people with dementia and their perspectives on respite service development: a qualitative systematic review.

Emma O' Shea, Suzanne Timmons, Eamon O' Shea, Siobhan Fox, Kate Irving

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. In-home respite care in dementia: An evolutionary concept analysis.International journal of nursing sciences · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Healthcare and social care professionals' experiences of respite care: a critical incident study.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

5 authors.

Emma O' SheaSchool of Nursing and Human Sciences, Dublin City University, Glasnevin, Dublin 9, Ireland. emma.oshea25@mail.dcu.ie.
Suzanne TimmonsCentre for Gerontology & Rehabilitation, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Eamon O' SheaIrish Centre for Social Gerontology, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
Siobhan FoxCentre for Gerontology & Rehabilitation, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland.
Kate IrvingSchool of Nursing and Human Sciences, Dublin City University, Glasnevin, Dublin 9, Ireland.

Funding

Health Research Board SPHeRE/2013/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRespite services provide a break in the caregiving relationship for people with dementia and their carers, however they are often under-used and service acceptability can be low. This study aims to understand key stakeholders' experiences of respite services for people with dementia, with a view to informing respite service development.

methodsA systematic search was conducted of the Pubmed/MedLine, Embase, Cinahl, PsychInfo, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases (1980-2016, English) with fixed search terms relating to 'respite' and 'dementia', following PRISMA guidelines. Noblit and Hare's approach to meta-ethnography was employed. Key concepts were identified across the papers and reciprocal and refutational translation techniques were applied to primary studies; findings were synthesized into third order interpretations and finally, a 'line-of-argument' was developed.

resultsIn total 23 papers were reviewed, which described 20 independent samples across 12 countries. The views of 889 participants were synthesized (13 people with dementia, 690 carers, 44 'service providers', 52 frontline staff, 70 managers, 12 volunteers, six academic/policy-makers, and two independent consultants). Five key concepts were identified and outlined i.e. 1) the transition to service use 2) expanding organizational capacity 3) dementia care quality 4) building a collaborative care partnership and 5) dyad restoration. There was broad agreement around the key areas for service development across the range of stakeholders (flexible and responsive person-centred care, meaningful activity for people with dementia, enhanced client-service communication and informational support). However, there was clear divergence in stakeholder perspectives around the barriers to implementation of such developments. Organizational tension was evident between frontline staff and management in respite services, hindering the cultural change necessary to facilitate service development in line with dyad's needs and preferences.

conclusionRespite services must surmount internal organizational barriers to change, and cultivate a collaborative solution-focused care culture, which acknowledges the centrality of the dyad and their care preferences. Future research should explore the development of alternative/modified community respite service models, which have greater capacity to be responsive to the needs of each individual dyad. The perspectives of people with dementia must be included in research in this area going forward.

trial registrationPROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42016050191 .

Indexed as

CaregiversDementiaHumansQuality of Health CareRespite CareStakeholder ParticipationDementiaMeta-ethnographyPerson-centred careRespiteService development

Identifiers

PMID29216836
PMCPMC5719558

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.