Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34529218›Full record

ArticleMedicine, health care, and philosophy2022

Feminist approach to geriatric care: comprehensive geriatric assessment, diversity and intersectionality.

Merle Weßel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medicine, health care, and philosophy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Leaving no one behind: successful ageing at the intersection of ageism and ableism.Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. [Feminist perspectives in German-language medical ethics: a review and three hypotheses].Ethik in der Medizin : Organ der Akademie fur Ethik in der Medizin · 2022
    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

1 author.

Merle WeßelEthics in Medicine, Carl Von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Ammerländer Heerstraße 114-118, 26111, Oldenburg, Germany. merle.wessel@uni-oldenburg.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7508-2934

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite being a collection of holistic assessment tools, the comprehensive geriatric assessment primarily focuses on the social category of age during the assessment and disregards for example gender. This article critically reviews the standardized testing process of the comprehensive geriatric assessment in regard to diversity-sensitivity. I show that the focus on age as social category during the assessment process might potentially hinder positive outcomes for people with diverse backgrounds of older patients in relation to other social categories, such as race, gender or socio-economic background and their influence on the health of the patient as well as the assessment and its outcomes. I suggest that the feminist perspective of intersectionality with its multicategorical approach can enhance the diversity-sensitivity of the comprehensive geriatric assessment, and thus improve the treatment of older patients and their quality of life. By suggesting an intersectional-based approach, this article contributes to debates about justice and diversity in medical philosophy and advocates for the normative value of diversity in geriatric medicine.

Indexed as

Geriatric AssessmentQuality of LifeAgedHumansIntersectional FrameworkSocial JusticeAgingDiversityGeriatric medicineIntersectionality

Identifiers

PMID34529218
PMCPMC8857167

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.