Identification of research gaps to improve care for healthy ageing: a scoping review.

IF 2.6 3区医学 Q1 PRIMARY HEALTH CARE Family Medicine and Community Health Pub Date : 2024-10-23 DOI:10.1136/fmch-2024-003116

Matteo Cesari, Marco Canevelli, Jotheeswaran Amuthavalli Thiyagarajan, Soung-Eun Choi, Polina Grushevska, Saloni Kumar, Muyan Chen, Hyobum Jang, Yuka Sumi, Anshu Banerjee

{"title":"Identification of research gaps to improve care for healthy ageing: a scoping review.","authors":"Matteo Cesari, Marco Canevelli, Jotheeswaran Amuthavalli Thiyagarajan, Soung-Eun Choi, Polina Grushevska, Saloni Kumar, Muyan Chen, Hyobum Jang, Yuka Sumi, Anshu Banerjee","doi":"10.1136/fmch-2024-003116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Several research gaps affect the improvement of care for healthy ageing. Their identification is crucial to developing a specific research prioritisation agenda supporting progress at the micro (clinical), meso (service delivery) and macro (system) levels. To achieve this, a scoping review was carried out to describe the most significant gaps impeding the improvement of care for healthy ageing.Design: A scoping review of the literature was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. The selected articles were analysed to identify topics or areas essential for improving care for healthy ageing but requiring further support from research.Eligibility criteria: Every type of scientific article, except for randomised controlled trials, was considered of potential interest without restrictions on publication date, type of publication and methodology.Information sources: A systematic search (last search: 6 December 2023) was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE and Scopus.Results: Overall, 1558 articles were retrieved from the literature. Of these, 310 were finally retained for this work. A total of 1195 research gaps were identified (average: 3.85 per article) and clustered into the 13 primary areas: ageing, care approach, caregivers, health economics, health, interventions, policies, research, settings, training, technology, specific populations and understanding the older person. In particular, research for improving the person-centred approach (n=38), better considering cultural diversities (n=27), implementing integrated care (n=25) and ensuring access to care (n=25) were the most prevalent priorities reported in the literature.Conclusions: A wide range of factors spanning multiple disciplines, from clinical to policy levels, require special consideration, exploration and resolution. The findings of this scoping review represent an essential step in identifying gaps for developing a research prioritisation agenda to improve care for healthy ageing.","PeriodicalId":44590,"journal":{"name":"Family Medicine and Community Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11499781/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family Medicine and Community Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/fmch-2024-003116","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PRIMARY HEALTH CARE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Several research gaps affect the improvement of care for healthy ageing. Their identification is crucial to developing a specific research prioritisation agenda supporting progress at the micro (clinical), meso (service delivery) and macro (system) levels. To achieve this, a scoping review was carried out to describe the most significant gaps impeding the improvement of care for healthy ageing.

Design: A scoping review of the literature was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. The selected articles were analysed to identify topics or areas essential for improving care for healthy ageing but requiring further support from research.

Eligibility criteria: Every type of scientific article, except for randomised controlled trials, was considered of potential interest without restrictions on publication date, type of publication and methodology.

Information sources: A systematic search (last search: 6 December 2023) was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE and Scopus.

Results: Overall, 1558 articles were retrieved from the literature. Of these, 310 were finally retained for this work. A total of 1195 research gaps were identified (average: 3.85 per article) and clustered into the 13 primary areas: ageing, care approach, caregivers, health economics, health, interventions, policies, research, settings, training, technology, specific populations and understanding the older person. In particular, research for improving the person-centred approach (n=38), better considering cultural diversities (n=27), implementing integrated care (n=25) and ensuring access to care (n=25) were the most prevalent priorities reported in the literature.

Conclusions: A wide range of factors spanning multiple disciplines, from clinical to policy levels, require special consideration, exploration and resolution. The findings of this scoping review represent an essential step in identifying gaps for developing a research prioritisation agenda to improve care for healthy ageing.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

确定研究差距，改善健康老龄化护理：范围界定审查。

目的：一些研究空白影响着健康老龄化护理工作的改进。找出这些差距对于制定具体的研究优先议程至关重要，有助于在微观（临床）、中观（服务提供）和宏观（系统）层面取得进展。为此，我们进行了一次范围界定审查，以描述阻碍改善健康老龄化护理的最重要差距：设计：根据乔安娜-布里格斯研究所（Joanna Briggs Institute）的方法对文献进行了范围界定审查。对所选文章进行分析，以确定对改善健康老龄化护理至关重要但需要进一步研究支持的主题或领域：除随机对照试验外，所有类型的科学文章均被认为具有潜在的研究价值，对出版日期、出版类型和研究方法均无限制：使用 PubMed、MEDLINE 和 Scopus 进行了系统检索（最后检索日期：2023 年 12 月 6 日）：共检索到 1558 篇文献。结果：共检索到 1558 篇文献，其中 310 篇最终被本研究保留。共发现 1195 项研究空白（平均每篇文章 3.85 项），并将其归类为 13 个主要领域：老龄化、护理方法、护理人员、卫生经济学、健康、干预、政策、研究、环境、培训、技术、特定人群和了解老年人。特别是，文献中报告的最普遍的优先事项是研究如何改进以人为本的方法（38 人）、更好地考虑文化多样性（27 人）、实施综合护理（25 人）和确保获得护理（25 人）：从临床到政策层面，跨越多个学科的广泛因素需要特别考虑、探讨和解决。本次范围界定审查的结果是确定差距的重要一步，有助于制定研究优先议程，改善健康老龄化护理。

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

Family Medicine and Community Health PRIMARY HEALTH CARE-

CiteScore

9.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

审稿时长

19 weeks

期刊介绍： Family Medicine and Community Health (FMCH) is a peer-reviewed, open-access journal focusing on the topics of family medicine, general practice and community health. FMCH strives to be a leading international journal that promotes ‘Health Care for All’ through disseminating novel knowledge and best practices in primary care, family medicine, and community health. FMCH publishes original research, review, methodology, commentary, reflection, and case-study from the lens of population health. FMCH’s Asian Focus section features reports of family medicine development in the Asia-pacific region. FMCH aims to be an exemplary forum for the timely communication of medical knowledge and skills with the goal of promoting improved health care through the practice of family and community-based medicine globally. FMCH aims to serve a diverse audience including researchers, educators, policymakers and leaders of family medicine and community health. We also aim to provide content relevant for researchers working on population health, epidemiology, public policy, disease control and management, preventative medicine and disease burden. FMCH does not impose any article processing charges (APC) or submission charges.