SynthesisBMJ open2020
Systematic review of qualitative studies on participants in the decision-making process about the location of care of the elderly.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Telemedicine in Advanced Kidney Disease and Kidney Transplant: A Qualitative Meta-Analysis of Studies of Patient Perspectives.Kidney medicine · 2024Article
- Avoidant Coping of the Decision-Making Process on the Location of Care in Old Age: A Possible Conspiracy of Silence?International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Experiences in the Decision-Making Regarding the Place of Care of the Elderly: A Systematic Review.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Reasons for the Place of Care of the Elders: A Systematic Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrection:2020
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo understand who are the participants in the decision-making process about the location of care of the elderly.
designSystematic review of qualitative studies. DATA SOURCES: The following databases were consulted: Web of Science, MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO and SciELO (from the beginning until 29 November 2017). The bibliographical references in the studies that were finally included in the review were also searched. STUDY SELECTION: The studies had to deal with the decision-making process (already experienced by the participants) on the location of care of the elderly (adults who are 65 or older), had to use a qualitative methodology and had to be written in English or Spanish. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A data extraction tool was used. Data analysis was conducted through the constant comparative method from Glaser and Strauss' grounded theory.
results46 studies were included in this review. Most of them were carried out in the USA, and in 21 of them the study population focused exclusively on the elderly. This review has found that there are many participants, with different roles and degrees of involvement, who may act jointly, separately or sequentially. These participants may be: the elders, family members, professionals and other relevant.
conclusionsThe main result of this review has been the variability found on how this decision is made, even varying the way of acting/perceiving the situation of the involved persons on certain occasions, simply due to the influence of some of the other groups of participants studied. Besides, this review has focused its results on the main participant in this process, the elders and how their family members interact with them when it comes to making this decision. This has allowed relevant results to be obtained about roles and degrees of involvement. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018084826.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.