Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31186018›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2019

The use of technology in the context of frailty screening and management interventions: a study of stakeholders' perspectives.

Holly Gwyther, Lex van Velsen, Rachel L Shaw, Barbara D'Avanzo, Maria Bujnowska-Fedak, Donata Kurpas, Katarzyna Szwamel, Jan-Willem Van't Klooster, Carol Holland

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Holly GwytherThe Centre for Ageing Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YG, UK. h.gwyther@lancaster.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-2867-4184
Lex van VelsenRoessingh Research and Development, Roessinghsbleekweg 33B, 7522, Enschede, AH, Netherlands.
Rachel L ShawResearch Centre for Healthy Ageing, School of Life and Health Sciences, Aston University, B4 7ET, Birmingham, UK.
Barbara D'AvanzoLaboratory of Quality Assessment of Geriatric Therapies and Services, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Milan, Italy.
Maria Bujnowska-FedakFamily Medicine Department, Wroclaw Medical University, Syrokomli 1, 51-141, Wroclaw, Poland.
Donata KurpasFamily Medicine Department, Wroclaw Medical University, Syrokomli 1, 51-141, Wroclaw, Poland.
Katarzyna SzwamelFamily Medicine Department, Wroclaw Medical University, Syrokomli 1, 51-141, Wroclaw, Poland.
Jan-Willem Van't KloosterBMS Lab, Faculty of behavioural, management and social sciences, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522, Enschede, NB, Netherlands.
Carol HollandThe Centre for Ageing Research, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YG, UK.
Lancaster University · GBPublic Higher Medical Professional School in Opole · PLAston University · GBMario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research · ITRoessingh Research and Development · NLUniversity of Twente · NLWroclaw Medical University · PL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth and social care interventions show promise as a way of managing the progression of frailty in older adults. Information technology could improve the availability of interventions and services for older adults. The views of stakeholders on the acceptability of technological solutions for frailty screening and management have not been explored.

methodsFocus groups were used to gather data from healthy and frail/pre-frail older adults, health and social care providers, and caregivers in three European countries - Italy, Poland and UK. Data were analysed using framework analysis in terms of facilitators or determinants of older adults' adoption of technology.

resultsOur findings clustered around the perceived value; usability, affordability and accessibility; and emotional benefits of frailty screening and management technology to stakeholders. We also noted issues relating to social support, previous experience of technology and confidence of stakeholders.

conclusionsProfessionals and caregivers understand the benefits of technology to facilitate frailty care pathways but these views are tempered by concerns around social isolation. Frail older adults raised legitimate concerns about the accessibility and usability of technology, specifically around the potential for their personal information to be compromised. Solutions must be developed within a framework that addresses social contexts and avoids stigma around frailty and ageing.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCaregiversDisease ManagementHealth PersonnelPatient Acceptance of Health CareTelecommunicationsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFocus GroupsFrailtyHumansItalyMalePolandDisease managementEducational technologyFrailtyOlder adultsTechnology

Identifiers

PMID31186018
PMCPMC6560850
OpenAlexW2951896812

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.