ArticleThe Gerontologist2024
Older Adults in Administrative Quagmire: A Scoping Review of Policy and Program Coordination Across Six Marginalized Older Adult Populations.
Article in The Gerontologist, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesCoordination of governmental action is crowded with policies and programs that are highly interdependent, sometimes operating in silos if not contradicting each other. These dilemmas, or administrative quagmires, are heightened for older adults in general, but they are particularly problematic for marginalized older adults because these groups often require public assistance and support. This scoping review studies the coordination of governmental action on aging published in social science journals, focusing on 6 groups of marginalized older adults: those with histories of immigration, individuals with severe mental health problems, those who have had experiences of homelessness, formerly incarcerated individuals, members of the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) community, and individuals living in a rural area. RESEARCH DESIGN AND
methodsA 5-stage scoping review methodology was followed, and 53 articles (published between 2000 and 2022) from 5 social science databases were analyzed.
resultsThe analysis revealed a limited number of contributions with coordination as a primary focus. Understandings of coordination varied but tended to examine structure, organization, and relationships between sectors. When coordination was the primary object of a study, it was often analyzed in 1 specific policy area or within a clinical setting along the lines of facilitating care coordination. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This scoping review reveals a mutual neglect on the part of public administration and policy scholars toward marginalized older adults and a lack of public administration considerations on the part of scholars studying long-term care and social service programs for these marginalized older adults.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.