Interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of older people living alone: a mixed-methods systematic review of effectiveness and accessibility

IF 2.3 3区 社会学 Q2 GERONTOLOGY Ageing & Society Pub Date : 2020-01-07 DOI:10.1017/s0144686x19001818
Georgina Johnstone, Marissa Dickins, J. Lowthian, Emma Renehan, J. Enticott, D. Mortimer, R. Ogrin
{"title":"Interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of older people living alone: a mixed-methods systematic review of effectiveness and accessibility","authors":"Georgina Johnstone, Marissa Dickins, J. Lowthian, Emma Renehan, J. Enticott, D. Mortimer, R. Ogrin","doi":"10.1017/s0144686x19001818","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The global population is ageing and the likelihood of living alone increases with age. Services are necessary to help older people living alone to optimise health and wellbeing. This systematic review aimed to summarise the effectiveness and accessibility of interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of older people living alone. Relevant electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus) were searched for all years up to August 2018. Studies were included if they involved older people (aged 3/455 years) living alone, and an intervention with measured health and wellbeing outcomes. All study types were included. The Theory of Access was used to assess interventions across dimensions of accessibility, availability, acceptability, affordability, adequacy and awareness. Twenty-eight studies met the eligibility criteria; 17 studies focused on ageing safely in place and 11 on psychological and social wellbeing. Studies comprised quantitative (N = 19), qualitative (N = 4) and mixed-methods (N = 5) approaches. Dimensions from the Theory of Access were poorly addressed in the studies, particularly those of higher-quality methodology. Studies were heterogeneous, preliminary in scope and lacked consistent study design, methodology or measurement. Services that do not address user accessibility in design or evaluation may be limited in their uptake and impact. It is recommended that dimensions of access and co-creation principles be integrated into service design processes and be evaluated alongside clinical effectiveness.","PeriodicalId":51364,"journal":{"name":"Ageing & Society","volume":"1 1","pages":"1-50"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1017/s0144686x19001818","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ageing & Society","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0144686x19001818","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

The global population is ageing and the likelihood of living alone increases with age. Services are necessary to help older people living alone to optimise health and wellbeing. This systematic review aimed to summarise the effectiveness and accessibility of interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of older people living alone. Relevant electronic databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Scopus) were searched for all years up to August 2018. Studies were included if they involved older people (aged 3/455 years) living alone, and an intervention with measured health and wellbeing outcomes. All study types were included. The Theory of Access was used to assess interventions across dimensions of accessibility, availability, acceptability, affordability, adequacy and awareness. Twenty-eight studies met the eligibility criteria; 17 studies focused on ageing safely in place and 11 on psychological and social wellbeing. Studies comprised quantitative (N = 19), qualitative (N = 4) and mixed-methods (N = 5) approaches. Dimensions from the Theory of Access were poorly addressed in the studies, particularly those of higher-quality methodology. Studies were heterogeneous, preliminary in scope and lacked consistent study design, methodology or measurement. Services that do not address user accessibility in design or evaluation may be limited in their uptake and impact. It is recommended that dimensions of access and co-creation principles be integrated into service design processes and be evaluated alongside clinical effectiveness.
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
改善独居老年人健康和福祉的干预措施:有效性和可及性的混合方法系统审查
全球人口正在老龄化,独居的可能性随着年龄的增长而增加。有必要提供服务,帮助独居老年人优化健康和福祉。本系统综述旨在总结干预措施的有效性和可及性,以改善独居老年人的健康和福祉。检索截至2018年8月的所有年份的相关电子数据库(CINAHL、MEDLINE、PsycINFO和Scopus)。如果研究涉及独居的老年人(3/455岁),并进行测量健康和福祉结果的干预,则纳入研究。所有的研究类型都包括在内。使用可及性理论评估干预措施的可及性、可获得性、可接受性、可负担性、充分性和意识。28项研究符合入选标准;17项研究关注安全老龄化,11项研究关注心理和社会健康。研究包括定量方法(N = 19)、定性方法(N = 4)和混合方法(N = 5)。在这些研究中,特别是那些采用高质量方法的研究中,获取理论的维度处理得很差。研究是异质的,范围是初步的,缺乏一致的研究设计、方法或测量。在设计或评估中不考虑用户可访问性的服务可能在其吸收和影响方面受到限制。建议将获取和共同创造原则的维度整合到服务设计过程中,并与临床有效性一起进行评估。
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
Ageing & Society
Ageing & Society GERONTOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
8.00%
发文量
144
期刊介绍: Ageing & Society is an interdisciplinary and international journal devoted to the understanding of human ageing and the circumstances of older people in their social and cultural contexts. It draws contributions and has readers from many disciplines including gerontology, sociology, demography, psychology, economics, medicine, social policy and the humanities. Ageing & Society promotes high-quality original research which is relevant to an international audience to encourage the exchange of ideas across the broad audience of multidisciplinary academics and practitioners working in the field of ageing.
期刊最新文献
Loneliness and social isolation of ethnic minority/immigrant older adults: a scoping review Labour market exit routes in high- and low-educated older workers before and after social insurance and retirement policy reforms in Sweden Social engagement and wellbeing in late life: a systematic review Understanding older adults' travel behaviour and mobility needs during the COVID-19 pandemic through the lens of the hierarchy of travel needs: a systematic review Tragedy and value of life of older persons in long-term care homes during COVID-19: a critical discourse analysis
×
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