Caring for Older People As a Social Determinant of Health: Findings from a Scoping Review of Observational Studies

Q2 Health Professions Journal of long-term care Pub Date : 2024-02-07 DOI:10.31389/jltc.207
Melanie Stowell, G. Spiers, Patience Kunonga, F. Beyer, C. Richmond, Dawn Craig, Barbara Hanratty
{"title":"Caring for Older People As a Social Determinant of Health: Findings from a Scoping Review of Observational Studies","authors":"Melanie Stowell, G. Spiers, Patience Kunonga, F. Beyer, C. Richmond, Dawn Craig, Barbara Hanratty","doi":"10.31389/jltc.207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Unpaid care is a critical source of support for people with health and social care needs. Unpaid carers are a group facing increasing demands and are at risk of adverse outcomes.\nObjectives: To assess the breadth of evidence on older carers/carers of older people in UK cohort studies.\nMethods: Using scoping review methods, we developed a targeted search strategy in three bibliographic databases (Medline, PsycInfo and CINAHL) for studies reporting carer characteristics and outcomes. Data were mapped using Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (EPPI) Reviewer, a web-based programme for managing and analysing data in reviews. The impacts of caring were explored and synthesised.\nFindings: Eighty-five studies were included. Where studies examined the impact of caring, outcomes were typically health-related; findings were inconsistent. Fewer studies reported the socioeconomic, disability-related, quality of life, or social impacts of caring. Fewer than half of studies reported subgroup analyses or care recipient information, and only five studies stratified carers’ outcomes by a measure of socioeconomic status.\nLimitations: Relying on data from observational studies means that key outcomes or caring pathways may be overlooked due to data collection methods. We therefore cannot infer causation/reverse causation regarding caring and carer outcomes.\nImplications: Our work highlights specific gaps in evidence regarding the social, economic, health and quality of life outcomes for carers. We also suggest methodological considerations to improve our understanding of care recipients, carers’ trajectories, and those at greatest risk of adverse outcomes. This information is vital to the development of research design, policies and interventions to support carers’ wellbeing.","PeriodicalId":73807,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of long-term care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Unpaid care is a critical source of support for people with health and social care needs. Unpaid carers are a group facing increasing demands and are at risk of adverse outcomes. Objectives: To assess the breadth of evidence on older carers/carers of older people in UK cohort studies. Methods: Using scoping review methods, we developed a targeted search strategy in three bibliographic databases (Medline, PsycInfo and CINAHL) for studies reporting carer characteristics and outcomes. Data were mapped using Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (EPPI) Reviewer, a web-based programme for managing and analysing data in reviews. The impacts of caring were explored and synthesised. Findings: Eighty-five studies were included. Where studies examined the impact of caring, outcomes were typically health-related; findings were inconsistent. Fewer studies reported the socioeconomic, disability-related, quality of life, or social impacts of caring. Fewer than half of studies reported subgroup analyses or care recipient information, and only five studies stratified carers’ outcomes by a measure of socioeconomic status. Limitations: Relying on data from observational studies means that key outcomes or caring pathways may be overlooked due to data collection methods. We therefore cannot infer causation/reverse causation regarding caring and carer outcomes. Implications: Our work highlights specific gaps in evidence regarding the social, economic, health and quality of life outcomes for carers. We also suggest methodological considerations to improve our understanding of care recipients, carers’ trajectories, and those at greatest risk of adverse outcomes. This information is vital to the development of research design, policies and interventions to support carers’ wellbeing.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
关爱老年人是健康的社会决定因素:观察性研究的范围界定审查结果
背景:无偿护理是为有健康和社会护理需求的人提供支持的重要来源。无偿照护者是一个面临越来越多需求的群体,他们面临着不良后果的风险:评估英国队列研究中有关老年照护者/老年人照护者的证据的广度:方法:我们采用范围审查方法,在三个文献数据库(Medline、PsycInfo 和 CINAHL)中制定了有针对性的检索策略,以检索报告照护者特征和结果的研究。我们使用 "政策与实践信息证据"(EPPI)审阅者(一种用于管理和分析综述数据的网络程序)对数据进行了映射。研究结果:共纳入 85 项研究:共纳入 85 项研究。这些研究探讨了护理的影响,其结果通常与健康相关;研究结果并不一致。较少研究报告了护理对社会经济、残疾、生活质量或社会的影响。只有不到一半的研究报告了亚组分析或受照护者信息,只有五项研究根据社会经济状况对照护者的结果进行了分层:局限性:依赖于观察性研究的数据意味着,由于数据收集方法的原因,关键结果或护理途径可能会被忽略。因此,我们无法推断护理和照护者结果之间的因果关系/反向因果关系:我们的工作凸显了有关照护者的社会、经济、健康和生活质量结果的具体证据差距。我们还提出了一些方法上的注意事项,以提高我们对照顾对象、照顾者的轨迹以及最有可能出现不良后果的人群的了解。这些信息对于制定研究设计、政策和干预措施以支持照护者的福祉至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
33 weeks
期刊最新文献
Music in Care Home Settings: Guidelines for Implementation and Evaluation Based on the Music Interventions for Depression and Dementia in ELderly Care (MIDDEL) Study in the UK Staff-Family Communication Methods in Long-Term Care Homes: An Integrative Review Care Relationships Between Support Staff and Adults With a Learning Disability in Long-Term Social Care Residential Settings in the United Kingdom: A Systematic Literature Review Nursing Home Characteristics and Resident Quality of Care Outcomes: A Scoping Review Developing the Principles of Falls Management in Care Homes: An expert Consensus Process
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1