ArticleBMJ open2024
Protocol for a scoping review of older informal carers and digital health service use.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe ageing population and increasing demands for healthcare pose challenges for national health services, which are increasingly looking to digital health services (DHS) as a potential solution. However, older informal carers, who provide unpaid care, often lack the digital skills necessary to access and use DHS, placing them at risk of social exclusion. This scoping review aims to systematically map and explore the existing literature on this topic, with the goal of identifying and addressing gaps in the research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review follows Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework. A systematic search will be conducted across seven databases: AgeLine, PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Social Sciences Abstracts, SocINDEX and Web of Science, focusing on studies published in English from 2010 onwards. The research team will collectively work on all stages of the review, ensuring consistency and collaboration throughout. Data extraction will capture key information on study topics, participant demographics, types of DHS and study design. The findings will be analysed using descriptive statistics. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this scoping review as it will rely solely on previously published data. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and engagements with non-academic stakeholders through seminars and workshops to maximise societal impact.
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.