Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32725147›Full record

ArticleThe Gerontologist2021

A Scoping Review of the Conceptual Differentiation of Technology for Healthy Aging.

Hansuk Kim, Sarah Kelly, Louise Lafortune, Carol Brayne

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The Gerontologist, 2021. 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
–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

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

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

4 authors.

Hansuk KimCambridge Institute of Public Health, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Sarah KellyCambridge Institute of Public Health, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Louise LafortuneCambridge Institute of Public Health, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Carol BrayneCambridge Institute of Public Health, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_PC_18008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesWith the emergence of healthy aging as a key societal issue in recent decades, technology has often been proposed as a solution to the challenges faced by aging societies. From a public health perspective, however, aging-related technologies have been inconsistently conceptualized and ill-defined. By examining how relevant concepts in "technology for aging" have been developed to date, we hope to identify gaps and begin clarifying the topic. RESEARCH DESIGN AND

methodsWe conducted a scoping review according to PRISMA-ScR, drawing on PubMed and Embase. We selected articles that directly reported concepts of technology for aging, or from which such concepts could be inferred.

resultsWe identified 43 articles, most of which were narrative reviews (n = 31). Concepts of technology for aging were presented in diverse ways with some overlap. Most studies provided some terminology (n = 36), but with little conceptual uniformity. Conceptual discourse was often focused on the aging agenda; while technological aspects were poorly defined. A conceptual framework from a public health perspective was derived from 8 articles-it showed that technology strategies do not take a population approach. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: While the potential of "technology for aging" is vast, its real capacity to deliver a desirable life for older people remains underdeveloped. Clearer concepts and realistic goals at population level are lacking. Efficient investment must be made throughout the social system, and technology needs to be integrated via macro-level practices.

Indexed as

Healthy AgingAgedAgingHumansTechnologyConceptFrameworkPublic healthStrategy

Identifiers

PMID32725147
PMCPMC8437509

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.