ArticlePloS one2026
Information sharing between family and friend carers of older adults and healthcare professionals: Protocol for a systematic review of qualitative studies.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPopulation aging worldwide continues to intensify the demand for family and friend carers to support older adults. Informal carers have long identified information gaps as a key challenge in their caregiving role, underscoring the importance of effective communication and collaboration with healthcare professionals (HCPs).
objectivesTo complete a comprehensive review of qualitative research and to synthesize what is known about the barriers and facilitators to information sharing between carers of older adults and HCPs.
methodsThis protocol outlines a systematic review that follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and PRISMA-P 2015 guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO on May 5, 2025. Our goal is to identify qualitative studies that meet our "PICo" (Population, phenomena of Interest, Context) eligibility criteria. Population includes carers and HCPs. Phenomena of interest is information sharing between the two populations. Context is carers who provide care to older adults aged 60 or above in any care setting. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts and full texts. We will use Covidence Extraction 2.0 for extraction of data from included records. Qualitative data from included records will be synthesized using Lockwood's meta-aggregation and Sandelowski's meta-summary approach to describe the experiences of information sharing reported within the literature. DISCUSSION: By comprehensively evaluating barriers and facilitators to information sharing within the literature, this review will offer significant insights into supporting more effective communication between carers and HCPs. Findings will inform the development of new strategies designed to optimize communication processes between carers and HCPs, with the ultimate goal of improving outcomes for older adults requiring caregiving support. This synthesis of current evidence will also identify gaps for further investigation and underscore the need for innovative communication solutions in diverse healthcare contexts.
trial registrationPROSPERO CRD420250636906.
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.