Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29315325›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2018

Quality indicators for community care for older people: A systematic review.

Karlijn J Joling, Liza van Eenoo, Davide L Vetrano, Veerle R Smaardijk, Anja Declercq, Graziano Onder, Hein P J van Hout, Henriëtte G van der Roest

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
14.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Improving quality measurement for dementia care.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 4 countries.

Karlijn J JolingDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-5301-6370
Liza van EenooLUCAS, KU Leuven, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Davide L VetranoDepartment of Geriatrics, Centro Medicina dell'Invecchiamento, Universita`Cattolica Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Veerle R SmaardijkDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Anja DeclercqLUCAS, KU Leuven, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Graziano OnderDepartment of Geriatrics, Centro Medicina dell'Invecchiamento, Universita`Cattolica Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Hein P J van HoutDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Henriëtte G van der RoestDepartment of General Practice and Elderly Care Medicine, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, VU University Medical Center, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam UMC Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam · NLKU Leuven · BEUniversità Cattolica del Sacro Cuore · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth care systems that succeed in preventing long term care and hospital admissions of frail older people may substantially save on their public spending. The key might be found in high-quality care in the community. Quality Indicators (QIs) of a sufficient methodological level are a prerequisite to monitor, compare, and improve care quality. This systematic review identified existing QIs for community care for older people and assessed their methodological quality.

methodsRelevant studies were identified by searches in electronic reference databases and selected by two reviewers independently. Eligible publications described the development or application of QIs to assess the quality of community care for older people. Information about the QIs, the study sample, and specific setting was extracted. The methodological quality of the QI sets was assessed with the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument. A score of 50% or higher on a domain was considered to indicate high methodological quality.

resultsSearches resulted in 25 included articles, describing 17 QI sets with 567 QIs. Most indicators referred to care processes (80%) and measured clinical issues (63%), mainly about follow-up, monitoring, examinations and treatment. About two-third of the QIs focussed on specific disease groups. The methodological quality of the indicator sets varied considerably. The highest overall level was achieved on the domain 'Additional evidence, formulation and usage' (51%), followed by 'Scientific evidence' (39%) and 'Stakeholder involvement' (28%).

conclusionA substantial number of QIs is available to assess the quality of community care for older people. However, generic QIs, measuring care outcomes and non-clinical aspects are relatively scarce and most QI sets do not meet standards of high methodological quality. This study can support policy makers and clinicians to navigate through a large number of QIs and select QIs for their purposes. PROSPERO Registration: 2014:CRD42014007199.

Indexed as

Quality Indicators, Health CareAgedCommunity Health ServicesHealth Services for the AgedHumans

Identifiers

PMID29315325
PMCPMC5760020
OpenAlexW2783469717

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.