Justine Schneider, J. Ablewhite, Jodie Bloska, Christian Gold, Martin Orrell, B. Dowson, Cliff McArdle, Helen Tooth, Sarah Trevers, Smruthi Murali Narippatta, Yin Fan, J. Wake, Agi Peach, Barbara Duckworth, Vigdis Sveinsdottir
Context: Music-based interventions are widely acknowledged to promote the wellbeing of care home residents, particularly those whose communication is impaired, such as through stroke or dementia. Yet in such settings the use of music is limited for reasons that are not entirely clear. Objectives: The Music Interventions for Depression and Dementia in ELderly care (MIDDEL) trial in 16 English care homes was used as a case study to highlight key issues which appear to affect the successful implementation and evaluation of music-based interventions. Methods: The fidelity data from the MIDDEL trial was used to develop inferences in consultation with interventionists and researchers. Based on the literature about implementing psychosocial interventions in care homes and data from this study, a checklist was developed to enhance implementation and research pertaining to music-based interventions in care homes. Findings: New insights were found on the adherence of interventionists to the fidelity criteria. Pragmatic issues relevant to conducting a trial immediately after a pandemic are highlighted, including: the difficulties of maintaining engagement with care home personnel and the practicalities of delivering an intensive intervention to a population who have depression and dementia. We derive recommendations for improving future interventional studies in care homes. Limitations: The participating care homes may not be representative of the industry. The Covid pandemic complicated the study in numerous ways documented here. Implications: The lessons learned offer guidance for future implementation and research on music-based interventions in residential care settings.
{"title":"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","authors":"Justine Schneider, J. Ablewhite, Jodie Bloska, Christian Gold, Martin Orrell, B. Dowson, Cliff McArdle, Helen Tooth, Sarah Trevers, Smruthi Murali Narippatta, Yin Fan, J. Wake, Agi Peach, Barbara Duckworth, Vigdis Sveinsdottir","doi":"10.31389/jltc.294","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.294","url":null,"abstract":"Context: Music-based interventions are widely acknowledged to promote the wellbeing of care home residents, particularly those whose communication is impaired, such as through stroke or dementia. Yet in such settings the use of music is limited for reasons that are not entirely clear.\u0000Objectives: The Music Interventions for Depression and Dementia in ELderly care (MIDDEL) trial in 16 English care homes was used as a case study to highlight key issues which appear to affect the successful implementation and evaluation of music-based interventions.\u0000Methods: The fidelity data from the MIDDEL trial was used to develop inferences in consultation with interventionists and researchers. Based on the literature about implementing psychosocial interventions in care homes and data from this study, a checklist was developed to enhance implementation and research pertaining to music-based interventions in care homes.\u0000Findings: New insights were found on the adherence of interventionists to the fidelity criteria. Pragmatic issues relevant to conducting a trial immediately after a pandemic are highlighted, including: the difficulties of maintaining engagement with care home personnel and the practicalities of delivering an intensive intervention to a population who have depression and dementia. We derive recommendations for improving future interventional studies in care homes.\u0000Limitations: The participating care homes may not be representative of the industry. The Covid pandemic complicated the study in numerous ways documented here.\u0000Implications: The lessons learned offer guidance for future implementation and research on music-based interventions in residential care settings.","PeriodicalId":73807,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141372579","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Alexander Stephen, Denise M Connelly, Lillian Hung, Janelle Unger
Context: Communication methods have been trialled to promote staff-family relations and facilitate person-centred care for residents living in long-term care homes. A review and synthesis of the common methods will inform the development of staff-family communication methods, policy and best practice guidelines. Objectives: 1) synthesise and summarise common communication methods, and types(s) of delivery, used for staff-family communication in long-term care homes; and 2) identify any challenges that impacted the implementation of the communication method(s). Methods: An integrative review was employed to incorporate papers with diverse research designs. It involved a comprehensive database and grey literature search, and study selection based on inclusion criteria. Data from included studies were extracted, coded and categorised by common communication method, delivery type(s) and challenges; studies were assessed for quality. Findings: A total of 3,183 potential papers were retrieved from seven international databases. Twenty-four original papers from six countries meeting inclusion criteria were reviewed and assessed for quality (M = 30; SD = 3.8). Common communication methods (structured education, meetings and takeaway resources) and challenges to implementation (confusion, misunderstanding and disagreement; lack of time; and technological difficulties) were identified and summarised. Limitations: The exclusion of papers published more than 20 years ago, geographical concentration of studies in high-income countries, and absence of stakeholder consultation may limit the generalisability and depth of the findings. Implications: Staff professional development and education, technology training and support, and accessibility of information in pamphlets and resources for family are crucial for facilitating staff-family communication in long-term care homes.
{"title":"Staff-Family Communication Methods in Long-Term Care Homes: An Integrative Review","authors":"Alexander Stephen, Denise M Connelly, Lillian Hung, Janelle Unger","doi":"10.31389/jltc.282","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.282","url":null,"abstract":"Context: Communication methods have been trialled to promote staff-family relations and facilitate person-centred care for residents living in long-term care homes. A review and synthesis of the common methods will inform the development of staff-family communication methods, policy and best practice guidelines.\u0000Objectives: 1) synthesise and summarise common communication methods, and types(s) of delivery, used for staff-family communication in long-term care homes; and 2) identify any challenges that impacted the implementation of the communication method(s).\u0000Methods: An integrative review was employed to incorporate papers with diverse research designs. It involved a comprehensive database and grey literature search, and study selection based on inclusion criteria. Data from included studies were extracted, coded and categorised by common communication method, delivery type(s) and challenges; studies were assessed for quality.\u0000Findings: A total of 3,183 potential papers were retrieved from seven international databases. Twenty-four original papers from six countries meeting inclusion criteria were reviewed and assessed for quality (M = 30; SD = 3.8). Common communication methods (structured education, meetings and takeaway resources) and challenges to implementation (confusion, misunderstanding and disagreement; lack of time; and technological difficulties) were identified and summarised.\u0000Limitations: The exclusion of papers published more than 20 years ago, geographical concentration of studies in high-income countries, and absence of stakeholder consultation may limit the generalisability and depth of the findings.\u0000Implications: Staff professional development and education, technology training and support, and accessibility of information in pamphlets and resources for family are crucial for facilitating staff-family communication in long-term care homes.","PeriodicalId":73807,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141119289","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Georgios Mamolis, P. Triantafyllopoulou, Karen Jones
Context: Research exploring care relationships between support staff (e.g., support workers) and adults with a learning disability in long-term social care residential settings in the United Kingdom is relatively neglected. This has potential theoretical and care practice implications. Objectives: This study sought to synthesise relevant literature, expand knowledge, and identify directions for future research. We investigated five questions about care relationships and what makes them positive, exploring definitions of care relationships, relational practices and processes, barriers and facilitators to good care relationships, the impact of relationships, and restoration of disrupted relationships. Methods: Following protocol registration in PROSPERO, a systematic literature review was conducted in June–July 2021. The review was informed by official guidelines and focused on the United Kingdom, covering 41 years of relevant work. Twelve databases and five websites were searched, and experts were contacted. Forty-five reports were included and synthesised using the narrative synthesis framework. Findings: Definitions of care relationships revolved around friendship, equality, professionalism, and power. Practices and processes underlying positive relationships included knowing the person, setting boundaries, and shifting power dynamics. Barriers to positive care relationships included staff interactional patterns, attributions, and staff dilemmas, whilst facilitators included receiving training and using communication tools. Good care relationships were key to effective support and ways to restore disrupted relationships included receiving input from systemic therapy. Limitations: Literature was limited for certain review questions and more extensive for others. Only a few reports addressed care relationships as such with the rest focusing on communication or interactions. Time constraints prevented us from including more kinds of reports. The voice of residents was limited. Implications: We hope that this review contributes to and expands knowledge around care relationships and shapes directions for future research. Findings can be used by support staff, service managers, residents, trainers, advocates, regulators, and researchers.
{"title":"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","authors":"Georgios Mamolis, P. Triantafyllopoulou, Karen Jones","doi":"10.31389/jltc.189","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.189","url":null,"abstract":"Context: Research exploring care relationships between support staff (e.g., support workers) and adults with a learning disability in long-term social care residential settings in the United Kingdom is relatively neglected. This has potential theoretical and care practice implications.\u0000Objectives: This study sought to synthesise relevant literature, expand knowledge, and identify directions for future research. We investigated five questions about care relationships and what makes them positive, exploring definitions of care relationships, relational practices and processes, barriers and facilitators to good care relationships, the impact of relationships, and restoration of disrupted relationships.\u0000Methods: Following protocol registration in PROSPERO, a systematic literature review was conducted in June–July 2021. The review was informed by official guidelines and focused on the United Kingdom, covering 41 years of relevant work. Twelve databases and five websites were searched, and experts were contacted. Forty-five reports were included and synthesised using the narrative synthesis framework.\u0000Findings: Definitions of care relationships revolved around friendship, equality, professionalism, and power. Practices and processes underlying positive relationships included knowing the person, setting boundaries, and shifting power dynamics. Barriers to positive care relationships included staff interactional patterns, attributions, and staff dilemmas, whilst facilitators included receiving training and using communication tools. Good care relationships were key to effective support and ways to restore disrupted relationships included receiving input from systemic therapy.\u0000Limitations: Literature was limited for certain review questions and more extensive for others. Only a few reports addressed care relationships as such with the rest focusing on communication or interactions. Time constraints prevented us from including more kinds of reports. The voice of residents was limited.\u0000Implications: We hope that this review contributes to and expands knowledge around care relationships and shapes directions for future research. Findings can be used by support staff, service managers, residents, trainers, advocates, regulators, and researchers.","PeriodicalId":73807,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140976281","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Roberto J. Millar, Christin Diehl, Elizabeth Blake, Oludolapo A Fakeye, Nancy Kusmaul
Context: Nursing facilities are an essential part of the long-term care continuum, providing a setting where older adults and persons with disabilities receive critical services and supports. Despite extensive research linking facility characteristics to resident outcomes, the facility and resident factors under investigation vary in the context of a diverse industry landscape and poor understanding of key quality of care outcomes. Objectives: This scoping review focused on identifying key concepts, summarising existing findings, and identifying gaps in research linking nursing facility characteristics and resident outcomes. Methods: Guided by PRISMA-ScR guidelines, this scoping review focused on empirical, English-language research published in five databases between 2005 and 2022. The research studies meeting specified inclusion criteria were subjected to thematic analysis for the extraction of key concepts and synthesis of findings. Findings: The 91 research studies in the final analytic sample conceptualised facility-level characteristics and resident outcomes using six and nine broad domains, respectively. The subcategories making up these discrete domains varied widely across studies. While evidence of linkages between facility environments and resident outcomes varied, there was general support that higher staffing capacity and home-like environments with support for autonomy and social integration were linked to better functional outcomes and higher overall subjective well-being of residents. Implications: It is imperative to understand how facility-level characteristics influence resident outcomes, and this scoping review provides insight into these complex relationships. A better understanding of this area is key to improving policies and regulatory oversight, as well as more broadly inform data driven decision-making.
{"title":"Nursing Home Characteristics and Resident Quality of Care Outcomes: A Scoping Review","authors":"Roberto J. Millar, Christin Diehl, Elizabeth Blake, Oludolapo A Fakeye, Nancy Kusmaul","doi":"10.31389/jltc.235","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.235","url":null,"abstract":"Context: Nursing facilities are an essential part of the long-term care continuum, providing a setting where older adults and persons with disabilities receive critical services and supports. Despite extensive research linking facility characteristics to resident outcomes, the facility and resident factors under investigation vary in the context of a diverse industry landscape and poor understanding of key quality of care outcomes. \u0000Objectives: This scoping review focused on identifying key concepts, summarising existing findings, and identifying gaps in research linking nursing facility characteristics and resident outcomes. \u0000Methods: Guided by PRISMA-ScR guidelines, this scoping review focused on empirical, English-language research published in five databases between 2005 and 2022. The research studies meeting specified inclusion criteria were subjected to thematic analysis for the extraction of key concepts and synthesis of findings. \u0000Findings: The 91 research studies in the final analytic sample conceptualised facility-level characteristics and resident outcomes using six and nine broad domains, respectively. The subcategories making up these discrete domains varied widely across studies. While evidence of linkages between facility environments and resident outcomes varied, there was general support that higher staffing capacity and home-like environments with support for autonomy and social integration were linked to better functional outcomes and higher overall subjective well-being of residents. \u0000Implications: It is imperative to understand how facility-level characteristics influence resident outcomes, and this scoping review provides insight into these complex relationships. A better understanding of this area is key to improving policies and regulatory oversight, as well as more broadly inform data driven decision-making.","PeriodicalId":73807,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141025704","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Katie R. Robinson, Frances Hallam, Jane C. Horne, Fran Allen, J. Darby, Alice Kilby, Stephen Timmons, Adam Gordon, Pip A Logan
Context: Managing falls in care homes requires an individualised approach for each resident with involvement of staff from care homes and the wider health and social care system. A large randomised controlled trial evaluating an individualised falls management programme (Action FALLS) demonstrated positive findings. However, the delivery of the key components of such programmes is still unclear. Greater understanding of the core components of falls management programmes is needed to support future implementation research. Objective: To establish expert consensus on the core components of falls management for older care home residents. Methods: A modified Nominal Group Technique included the development of a draft set of principles through a scoping review of the grey literature (published elsewhere) and a one-off online nominal group with care home staff and clinicians. Following the group, a single online survey was circulated to gain agreement on the final principles. Findings: 10 participants (including healthcare professionals, care home managers, and care home staff) took part in the online nominal group. Thirty-five core principles of falls management were developed within the domains of theoretical approach, assessments, interventions, training, time points, wider systems, and governance and reporting. Limitations: Since a small number of experts took part in this consensus process from a large and diverse care home sector, it is important to consider the principles as providing support for future implementation work. Implications: These core principles provide a foundation to guide care homes in managing falls in care home residents. Further research is needed to develop implementation strategies and test the feasibility of embedding the principles in routine practice.
{"title":"Developing the Principles of Falls Management in Care Homes: An expert Consensus Process","authors":"Katie R. Robinson, Frances Hallam, Jane C. Horne, Fran Allen, J. Darby, Alice Kilby, Stephen Timmons, Adam Gordon, Pip A Logan","doi":"10.31389/jltc.170","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.170","url":null,"abstract":"Context: Managing falls in care homes requires an individualised approach for each resident with involvement of staff from care homes and the wider health and social care system. A large randomised controlled trial evaluating an individualised falls management programme (Action FALLS) demonstrated positive findings. However, the delivery of the key components of such programmes is still unclear. Greater understanding of the core components of falls management programmes is needed to support future implementation research.\u0000Objective: To establish expert consensus on the core components of falls management for older care home residents.\u0000Methods: A modified Nominal Group Technique included the development of a draft set of principles through a scoping review of the grey literature (published elsewhere) and a one-off online nominal group with care home staff and clinicians. Following the group, a single online survey was circulated to gain agreement on the final principles.\u0000Findings: 10 participants (including healthcare professionals, care home managers, and care home staff) took part in the online nominal group. Thirty-five core principles of falls management were developed within the domains of theoretical approach, assessments, interventions, training, time points, wider systems, and governance and reporting.\u0000Limitations: Since a small number of experts took part in this consensus process from a large and diverse care home sector, it is important to consider the principles as providing support for future implementation work.\u0000Implications: These core principles provide a foundation to guide care homes in managing falls in care home residents. Further research is needed to develop implementation strategies and test the feasibility of embedding the principles in routine practice.","PeriodicalId":73807,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140659435","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sue Tucker, Deborah Buck, Amy Roberts, Claireq Hargreaves
Context: Social care need in prisons is increasing in many countries. However, the delivery of social care in prisons has been (at best) inconsistent and there has been no previous review to inform provision for people on release. Objective: To identify and synthesise what is known about the social care needs of people on release from prison and how best to meet these. Method: A scoping review encompassing systematic searches of 26 electronic databases (January 2010–July 2021) included a wide range of literature. No exclusions were made on the basis of study design, method or quality. Findings were organised according to their contribution to the research questions. Findings: Forty-six documents met the review criteria of which 27 were from the UK. Just two focused specifically on the topic of interest and most of the extracted material was descriptive in nature. Almost no information was found on the number of people released from prison in need of social care. However, the challenges of providing care for this group appeared well understood. Although there were many examples of good practice and widespread consensus about its enablers, outcome information was lacking. Limitations: In keeping with the nature of the review, the quality of the literature was not formally assessed. Implications: The review identified several promising initiatives ranging from prison buddy schemes to pre-release training in everyday living skills and personalised pathway documents. Conclusions: Policy makers and researchers must now shift their attention to the effectiveness of particular interventions in improving social care outcomes.
{"title":"Supporting People with Social Care Needs On Release from Prison: A Scoping Review","authors":"Sue Tucker, Deborah Buck, Amy Roberts, Claireq Hargreaves","doi":"10.31389/jltc.161","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.161","url":null,"abstract":"Context: Social care need in prisons is increasing in many countries. However, the delivery of social care in prisons has been (at best) inconsistent and there has been no previous review to inform provision for people on release.\u0000Objective: To identify and synthesise what is known about the social care needs of people on release from prison and how best to meet these.\u0000Method: A scoping review encompassing systematic searches of 26 electronic databases (January 2010–July 2021) included a wide range of literature. No exclusions were made on the basis of study design, method or quality. Findings were organised according to their contribution to the research questions.\u0000Findings: Forty-six documents met the review criteria of which 27 were from the UK. Just two focused specifically on the topic of interest and most of the extracted material was descriptive in nature. Almost no information was found on the number of people released from prison in need of social care. However, the challenges of providing care for this group appeared well understood. Although there were many examples of good practice and widespread consensus about its enablers, outcome information was lacking.\u0000Limitations: In keeping with the nature of the review, the quality of the literature was not formally assessed.\u0000Implications: The review identified several promising initiatives ranging from prison buddy schemes to pre-release training in everyday living skills and personalised pathway documents.\u0000Conclusions: Policy makers and researchers must now shift their attention to the effectiveness of particular interventions in improving social care outcomes.","PeriodicalId":73807,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139841780","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Sue Tucker, Deborah Buck, Amy Roberts, Claireq Hargreaves
Context: Social care need in prisons is increasing in many countries. However, the delivery of social care in prisons has been (at best) inconsistent and there has been no previous review to inform provision for people on release. Objective: To identify and synthesise what is known about the social care needs of people on release from prison and how best to meet these. Method: A scoping review encompassing systematic searches of 26 electronic databases (January 2010–July 2021) included a wide range of literature. No exclusions were made on the basis of study design, method or quality. Findings were organised according to their contribution to the research questions. Findings: Forty-six documents met the review criteria of which 27 were from the UK. Just two focused specifically on the topic of interest and most of the extracted material was descriptive in nature. Almost no information was found on the number of people released from prison in need of social care. However, the challenges of providing care for this group appeared well understood. Although there were many examples of good practice and widespread consensus about its enablers, outcome information was lacking. Limitations: In keeping with the nature of the review, the quality of the literature was not formally assessed. Implications: The review identified several promising initiatives ranging from prison buddy schemes to pre-release training in everyday living skills and personalised pathway documents. Conclusions: Policy makers and researchers must now shift their attention to the effectiveness of particular interventions in improving social care outcomes.
{"title":"Supporting People with Social Care Needs On Release from Prison: A Scoping Review","authors":"Sue Tucker, Deborah Buck, Amy Roberts, Claireq Hargreaves","doi":"10.31389/jltc.161","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.161","url":null,"abstract":"Context: Social care need in prisons is increasing in many countries. However, the delivery of social care in prisons has been (at best) inconsistent and there has been no previous review to inform provision for people on release.\u0000Objective: To identify and synthesise what is known about the social care needs of people on release from prison and how best to meet these.\u0000Method: A scoping review encompassing systematic searches of 26 electronic databases (January 2010–July 2021) included a wide range of literature. No exclusions were made on the basis of study design, method or quality. Findings were organised according to their contribution to the research questions.\u0000Findings: Forty-six documents met the review criteria of which 27 were from the UK. Just two focused specifically on the topic of interest and most of the extracted material was descriptive in nature. Almost no information was found on the number of people released from prison in need of social care. However, the challenges of providing care for this group appeared well understood. Although there were many examples of good practice and widespread consensus about its enablers, outcome information was lacking.\u0000Limitations: In keeping with the nature of the review, the quality of the literature was not formally assessed.\u0000Implications: The review identified several promising initiatives ranging from prison buddy schemes to pre-release training in everyday living skills and personalised pathway documents.\u0000Conclusions: Policy makers and researchers must now shift their attention to the effectiveness of particular interventions in improving social care outcomes.","PeriodicalId":73807,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139781950","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Melanie Stowell, G. Spiers, Patience Kunonga, F. Beyer, C. Richmond, Dawn Craig, Barbara Hanratty
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.
{"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":"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.207","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.\u0000Objectives: To assess the breadth of evidence on older carers/carers of older people in UK cohort studies.\u0000Methods: 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.\u0000Findings: 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.\u0000Limitations: 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.\u0000Implications: 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":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139856263","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Melanie Stowell, G. Spiers, Patience Kunonga, F. Beyer, C. Richmond, Dawn Craig, Barbara Hanratty
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.
{"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":"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.207","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.\u0000Objectives: To assess the breadth of evidence on older carers/carers of older people in UK cohort studies.\u0000Methods: 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.\u0000Findings: 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.\u0000Limitations: 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.\u0000Implications: 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":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139796557","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Jonathan Taylor, Nick Smith, Laura Prato, Jaqueline Damant, Sarah Jasim, Madalina Toma, Yuri Hamashima, Hugh McLeod, A. Towers, Jolie R. Keemink, C. Nwolise, C. Giebel, Ray Fitzpatrick
Context: Previous reviews of care planning (CP) interventions in care homes focus on higher quality research methodologies and exclusively consider advanced care planning (ACP), thereby excluding many intervention-based studies that could inform current practice. CP is concerned with residents’ current circumstances while ACP focuses on expressing preferences which relate to future care decisions. Objectives: To identify, map and summarise studies reporting CP interventions for older people in care homes. Methods: Seven electronic databases were searched from 1 January 2012 until 1 January 2022. Studies of CP interventions, targeted at older people (>60 years), whose primary place of residence was a care home, were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of 3778 articles. Following a full-text review of 404 articles, data from 112 eligible articles were extracted using a predefined data extraction form. Findings: Studies were conducted in 25 countries and the majority of studies took place in the United States, Australia and the UK. Most interventions occurred within nursing homes (61%, 68/112). More than 90% of interventions (93%, 104/112) targeted staff, and training was the most common focus (80%, 83/104), although only one included training for ancillary staff (such as cleaners and caterers). Only a third of the studies (35%, 39/112) involved family and friends, and 62% (69/112) described interventions to improve CP practices through multiple means. Limitations: Only papers written in English were included, so potentially relevant studies may have been omitted. Implications: Two groups of people – ancillary workers and family and friends – who could play a valuable role in CP were often not included in CP interventions. These oversights should be addressed in future research.
{"title":"Care Planning Interventions for Care Home Residents: A Scoping Review","authors":"Jonathan Taylor, Nick Smith, Laura Prato, Jaqueline Damant, Sarah Jasim, Madalina Toma, Yuri Hamashima, Hugh McLeod, A. Towers, Jolie R. Keemink, C. Nwolise, C. Giebel, Ray Fitzpatrick","doi":"10.31389/jltc.223","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.223","url":null,"abstract":"Context: Previous reviews of care planning (CP) interventions in care homes focus on higher quality research methodologies and exclusively consider advanced care planning (ACP), thereby excluding many intervention-based studies that could inform current practice. CP is concerned with residents’ current circumstances while ACP focuses on expressing preferences which relate to future care decisions.\u0000Objectives: To identify, map and summarise studies reporting CP interventions for older people in care homes.\u0000Methods: Seven electronic databases were searched from 1 January 2012 until 1 January 2022. Studies of CP interventions, targeted at older people (>60 years), whose primary place of residence was a care home, were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts of 3778 articles. Following a full-text review of 404 articles, data from 112 eligible articles were extracted using a predefined data extraction form.\u0000Findings: Studies were conducted in 25 countries and the majority of studies took place in the United States, Australia and the UK. Most interventions occurred within nursing homes (61%, 68/112). More than 90% of interventions (93%, 104/112) targeted staff, and training was the most common focus (80%, 83/104), although only one included training for ancillary staff (such as cleaners and caterers). Only a third of the studies (35%, 39/112) involved family and friends, and 62% (69/112) described interventions to improve CP practices through multiple means.\u0000Limitations: Only papers written in English were included, so potentially relevant studies may have been omitted.\u0000Implications: Two groups of people – ancillary workers and family and friends – who could play a valuable role in CP were often not included in CP interventions. These oversights should be addressed in future research.","PeriodicalId":73807,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term care","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138594881","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：