Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39623328›Full record

ArticleBMC primary care2024

Older people's perspectives on frailty screening in primary care settings - a citizens' jury study.

Annette Braunack-Mayer, Jackie M Street, Caitlin Reader, Lesley M O'Brien, Elsa Dent, Belinda Fabrianesi, Agnieszka Chudecka, Renuka Visvanathan, Justin Beilby, Michael Lawless and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC primary care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

11 authors.

Annette Braunack-MayerAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Jackie M StreetAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Caitlin ReaderCentre for Public Health Equity and Human Flourishing, Torrens University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Lesley M O'BrienCentre for Public Health Equity and Human Flourishing, Torrens University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Elsa DentCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Belinda FabrianesiAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia.
Agnieszka ChudeckaMulticultural Aged Care SA Inc, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Renuka VisvanathanAged and Extended Care Services and Basil Hetzel Institute, The Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Justin BeilbyCentre for Public Health Equity and Human Flourishing, Torrens University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Michael LawlessCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Bedford Park, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Rachel C AmbagtsheerCentre for Public Health Equity and Human Flourishing, Torrens University, Adelaide, SA, Australia. rambagtsheer@torrens.edu.au.

Funding

Medical Research Future Fund (MRFF) Dementia, Ageing and Aged Care Mission 2021 2016140
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAs the world's population ages, there is a growing concern with frailty, marked by reduced strength and greater vulnerability to stress. Overcoming obstacles like reluctance towards screening methods in this process is crucial for identifying and addressing frailty at an early stage. Understanding older people's perspectives can help adapt screening procedures in primary healthcare settings.

methodsA citizens' jury, comprising 14 purposively selected members reflecting community diversity, was conducted in South Australia to explore older adults' opinions on how and when frailty screenings occur within primary care settings. Participants engaged in discussions and deliberations informed by expert testimonies and evidence-based resources. This deliberative inclusive research method supported jurors to understand the evidence and contribute informed insights into health policy.

resultsThe jury systematically addressed several key concerns, including the major issues surrounding frailty screening, its benefits and potential harms, and measures to prevent screening bias and misdiagnosis. The outcome was 17 recommendations within the themes of screening age and frequency, consent, access and setting, communication and public awareness, and resources and cost.

conclusionsThe study highlights the value of including older adults in the decision-making about health interventions aimed at them. The method proved effective in capturing a spectrum of community values and preferences, offering actionable recommendations for refining health screening policies to better address the needs and expectations of older adults.

Indexed as

FrailtyMass ScreeningPrimary Health CareAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFrail ElderlyGeriatric AssessmentHumansMaleMiddle AgedSouth AustraliaCitizens’ juryFrailty screeningOlder adultsPreventative health servicesPrimary care

Identifiers

PMID39623328
PMCPMC11610195

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.