Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32209627›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2020

Use of healthcare services and assistive devices among centenarians: results of the cross-sectional, international5-COOP study.

Julien Dupraz, Karen Andersen-Ranberg, Stefan Fors, Marie Herr, Francois R Herrmann, Tomoko Wakui, Bernard Jeune, Jean-Marie Robine, Yasuhiko Saito, Brigitte Santos-Eggimann and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

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

11 authors at 7 institutions in 5 countries.

Julien DuprazCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland julien.dupraz@unisante.ch.ORCID 0000-0003-0082-8759
Karen Andersen-RanbergEpidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Public Health, and Danish Aging Research Centre, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Stefan ForsAging Research Center, Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Marie HerrU1168, VIMA: Aging and Chronic Diseases, Epidemiological and Public Health Approaches, INSERM, Villejuif, France.
Francois R HerrmannDivision of Geriatrics, Department of Rehabilitation and Geriatrics, Geneva University Hospitals and University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Tomoko WakuiTokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan.
Bernard JeuneEpidemiology and Biostatistics, Institute of Public Health, and Danish Aging Research Centre, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
Jean-Marie RobineMMDN, Université de Montpellier, EPHE, INSERM, U1198, PSL Research University, Montpellier, France.
Yasuhiko SaitoCollege of Economics and Population Research Institute, Nihon University, Tokyo, Japan.
Brigitte Santos-EggimannCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
5-COOP group
Centre universitaire de médecine générale et santé publique, Lausanne · CHInserm · FRUniversity of Southern Denmark · DKNihon University · JPStockholm University · SETokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology · JPUniversity of Geneva · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo measure the use of healthcare services and assistive devices by centenarians in five countries.

designCross-sectional study using a survey questionnaire.

settingCommunity-dwelling and institutionalised centenarians living in Japan, France, Switzerland, Sweden and Denmark.

participants1253 participants aged 100 or in their 100th year of life, of whom 1004 (80.1%) were female and 596 (47.6%) lived in institutions.

main outcome measuresRecent use of medical visits, nursing care at home, home-delivered meals, acute care hospital stays overnight, professional assessments such as sight tests, mobility aids and other assistive devices. A set of national healthcare system indicators was collected to help interpret differences between countries.

resultsThere was considerable variability in the healthcare services and assistive devices used by centenarians depending on their country and whether they were community-dwelling or institutionalised. In contrast to the relatively homogeneous rates of hospitalisation in the past year (around 20%), community-dwelling centenarians reported widely ranging rates of medical visits in the past 3 months (at least one visit, from 32.2% in Japan to 86.6% in France). The proportion of community-dwellers using a mobility device to get around indoors (either a walking aid or a wheelchair) ranged from 48.3% in Japan to 79.2% in Sweden. Participants living in institutions and reporting the use of a mobility device ranged from 78.6% in Japan to 98.2% in Denmark.

conclusionsOur findings suggest major differences in care received by centenarians across countries. Some may result from the characteristics of national healthcare systems, especially types of healthcare insurance coverage and the amounts of specific resources available. However, unexplored factors also seem to be at stake and may be partly related to personal health and cultural differences.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareSelf-Help DevicesAged, 80 and overCross-Sectional StudiesDenmarkFemaleFranceHumansJapanMaleSwedenSwitzerlandassistive devicescentenarianshealthcare systemshealth services useinternational comparison

Identifiers

PMID32209627
PMCPMC7202712
OpenAlexW3014024374

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.