Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38252472›Full record

ArticleJMIR aging2024

Characteristics and Range of Reviews About Technologies for Aging in Place: Scoping Review of Reviews.

Jenny M Bergschöld, Mari Gunnes, Arne H Eide, Eva Lassemo

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR aging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

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

4 authors.

Jenny M BergschöldDepartment of Health, SINTEF Digital, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-0967-3557
Mari GunnesDepartment of Health, SINTEF Digital, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-2538-4552
Arne H EideDepartment of Health, SINTEF Digital, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-9413-3108
Eva LassemoDepartment of Health, SINTEF Digital, Trondheim, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-5453-9082

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is a contemporary and global challenge that the increasing number of older people requiring care will surpass the available caregivers. Solutions are needed to help older people maintain their health, prevent disability, and delay or avoid dependency on others. Technology can enable older people to age in place while maintaining their dignity and quality of life. Literature reviews on this topic have become important tools for researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and decision makers who need to navigate and access the extensive available evidence. Due to the large number and diversity of existing reviews, there is a need for a review of reviews that provides an overview of the range and characteristics of the evidence on technology for aging in place.

objectiveThis study aimed to explore the characteristics and the range of evidence on technologies for aging in place by conducting a scoping review of reviews and presenting an evidence map that researchers, policy makers, and practitioners may use to identify gaps and reviews of interest.

methodsThe review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). Literature searches were conducted in Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus using a search string that consisted of the terms "older people" and "technology for ageing in place," with alternate terms using Boolean operators and truncation, adapted to the rules for each database.

resultsA total of 5447 studies were screened, with 344 studies included after full-text screening. The number of reviews on this topic has increased dramatically over time, and the literature is scattered across a variety of journals. Vocabularies and approaches used to describe technology, populations, and problems are highly heterogeneous. We have identified 3 principal ways that reviews have dealt with populations, 5 strategies that the reviews draw on to conceptualize technology, and 4 principal types of problems that they have dealt with. These may be understood as methods that can inform future reviews on this topic. The relationships among populations, technologies, and problems studied in the reviews are presented in an evidence map that includes pertinent gaps.

conclusionsRedundancies and unexploited synergies between bodies of evidence on technology for aging in place are highly likely. These results can be used to decrease this risk if they are used to inform the design of future reviews on this topic. There is a need for an examination of the current state of the art in knowledge on technology for aging in place in low- and middle-income countries, especially in Africa.

Indexed as

Independent LivingQuality of LifeAdministrative PersonnelAgedAgingHumansReview Literature as TopicTechnologyagingaging in placeassistive technologyevidence mapevidence mappinggeriatricgeriatricsgerontechnologygerontologyolder adultolder adultsolder peoplereview methodologyreview methodsscopingtechnology

Identifiers

PMID38252472
PMCPMC10845034

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.