Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39414307›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Protocol for a scoping review of older informal carers and digital health service use.

Emanuela Sala, Federica Cretazzo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Emanuela SalaDipartimento di Sociologia e Ricerca Sociale, Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca, Milano, Italy emanuela.sala@unimib.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2988-579X
Federica CretazzoDepartment of Sociology and Social Research, University of Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5146-5535

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CaregiversAgedDigital HealthHumansResearch DesignScoping Reviews as TopicTelemedicineagingcaregiverseHealthfamilyinformation technologyreview

Identifiers

PMID39414307
PMCPMC11487856

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.