Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35466247›Full record

ArticleNursing reports (Pavia, Italy)2022

Before the COVID-Vaccine-Vulnerable Elderly in Homecare.

Liv Wergeland Sørbye, Else Vengnes Grue, Sophie Hogeveen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Consequences of COVID-19 and Its Variants: Understanding the Physical, Oral, and Psychological Impact.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    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

3 authors.

Liv Wergeland SørbyeDepartment of Health, VID Specialized University, NO-0319 Oslo, Norway.
Else Vengnes GrueDepartment of Health, VID Specialized University, NO-0319 Oslo, Norway.
Sophie HogeveenDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence & Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON L8S 3L8, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-6641-5773

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAt the beginning of 2020, the COVID-19 virus was spreading all over the world. Frail elderly were at risk for illness and death. Isolation seemed to be the best solution. The aim of this paper was to describe how the lockdown affected elderly homecare patients.

methodsWe used an international self-reported screening instrument built on well-documented risk factors adapted to COVID-19. We considered ethical, legal, and practical concerns. The research included telephone interviews with 30 homecare patients.

resultsSeventy percent lived alone. Seventy-three percent of the sample suffered from major comorbidity. Cardiovascular disorder was the most frequent diagnosis. Nineteen (63.3%) needed help for personal care. Several of the participants were lonely and depressed. The homecare teams struggled to give proper care. The health authorities encouraged the population to reduce their outside physical activities to a minimum. The restrictions due to COVID-19 affected daily life and several respondents expressed uncertainties about the future.

conclusionsIt is important to describe the patients' experiences in a homecare setting at the initiation of lockdowns due to COVID-19. The isolation protected them from the virus, but they struggled with loneliness and the lack of physical contact with their loved ones. In the future, we need to understand and address the unmet needs of elderly homecare patients in lockdown.

Indexed as

COVID-19 screeninghomebound elderlyhomecareinsecurities about the futureloneliness

Identifiers

PMID35466247
PMCPMC9036265

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.