ArticleBMJ open2024
Characteristics of the studies using realist evaluation to assess interventions that address psychosocial healthcare issues in older adults: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesInterventions to address psychosocial healthcare issues in older adults are increasing. Realist evaluation (RE) helps us understand how these interventions work for their issues. It is significant to obtain implications for further developing such research. We aimed to identify the characteristics of studies using RE to assess interventions that address psychosocial healthcare issues in older adults by mapping relevant literature.
designScoping review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, ICHUSHI (a Japanese database) and Google Scholar were used for searches between 5 January 2022 and 4 January 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: (1) Showing that most of the participants were older adults or their stakeholders; (2) stating in the research background or aim sections that the target interventions aimed at addressing older adults' psychosocial healthcare issues and (3) using RE to assess these interventions. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on country of origin, type of research, study design, qualitative data collection and analysis methods, desirable items for RE and intervention aims and purposes were extracted and summarised using descriptive statistics.
resultsFifty-four studies were analysed. Most studies were conducted in the UK (54.5%). Mixed methods were used in 28 studies (51.9%), while only qualitative methods were used in 25 studies (46.2 %). Fourteen intervention aims and purposes were identified: improving dementia care, avoiding emergency admissions, preventing social isolation and promoting family involvement in the care of older adults.
conclusionRE is useful for promoting an understanding of how interventions work for addressing psychosocial healthcare issues in older adults. RE also promotes the updating of plausible theories that lead to improving interventions. Our findings show the implications of managing time and resources to address the challenge of RE's time and resource intensiveness and carefully considering the data collection methods to reduce burdens on 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.