SynthesisBMC geriatrics2026
Live-in care for older people with a focus on those living with dementia: a scoping review.
Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2026. 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResearch has shown that adults prefer to remain in their own homes as they age. Care homes are expensive and as the population ages, availability is likely to become more limited and unaffordable to many. Live-in care, when a paid worker moves into the care recipient's home to provide support, offers a potential alternative to residential care. This is the first scoping review of research on live-in care with a particular focus on people living with dementia. It seeks to reframe understanding of long-term care options for people with dementia.
methodsThis scoping review followed conduct guidelines as described by the JBI. Systematic searches were conducted using seventeen bibliographic databases and sources rich in grey literature for quantitative or qualitative studies investigating live-in care. Results were double screened by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted and checked. Common findings found during data extraction were translated into themes. A lay advisory group was also consulted as to which themes were most relevant to them.
resultsMost studies were qualitative in nature with a focus on the experience of the live-in care worker. In all studies live-in care workers were from countries outside of where they worked. Common themes arising from the findings of the studies included: motivations for choosing live-in care; relationships between live-in carer and care recipient and their families; exploitation of care workers and perceived quality of the care provided. Only seven studies focused on live-in care for people with dementia. These results address a critical gap in knowledge about a global form of care.
conclusionLive-in care offers a promising alternative to residential care. Existing studies highlight a range of issues that should be addressed with live-in care arrangements, including exploitation of the workforce, cultural differences between workers and the families, a lack of training for live-in care workers and the importance of good relationships with this model of care. This scoping review identifies a previously unrecognised pattern, namely a focus on the live-in care worker, rather than the experiences of those receiving care. More studies investigating live-in care specifically for people living with dementia would help inform whether this model of care is effective for them.
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.