1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Definitions, key themes and aspects of ‘ageing in place’: a scoping review

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The purpose is to give an overview of the extent, range and nature of existing definitions of the concept ‘ageing in place’. Providing such an overview may be helpful, for policy makers, researchers, communities and service providers, to make sense of the versatility and uses of the concept, and allow the improvement and increase the success of efforts to contribute to the quality of life of older people. The overview was created using Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology. Out of 3,692 retrieved articles, 34 met the inclusion criteria. These studies concentrate on the following five key themes concerning ‘ageing in place’: ‘ageing in place’ in relation to place, to social networks, to support, to technology and to personal characteristics. Each of these key themes consists of other aspects, like physical place and attachment to place for the keyword place. This study concludes that the concept ‘ageing in place’ is broad and can be viewed from different ( i.e. five) key themes. A more thorough understanding of ‘ageing in place’ provides knowledge about the existing key themes and aspects. These findings might provide practical support for professionals and governments when they develop their policies about ‘ageing in place’ integrally and to develop fit policies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references50

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Scoping studies: advancing the methodology

            Background Scoping studies are an increasingly popular approach to reviewing health research evidence. In 2005, Arksey and O'Malley published the first methodological framework for conducting scoping studies. While this framework provides an excellent foundation for scoping study methodology, further clarifying and enhancing this framework will help support the consistency with which authors undertake and report scoping studies and may encourage researchers and clinicians to engage in this process. Discussion We build upon our experiences conducting three scoping studies using the Arksey and O'Malley methodology to propose recommendations that clarify and enhance each stage of the framework. Recommendations include: clarifying and linking the purpose and research question (stage one); balancing feasibility with breadth and comprehensiveness of the scoping process (stage two); using an iterative team approach to selecting studies (stage three) and extracting data (stage four); incorporating a numerical summary and qualitative thematic analysis, reporting results, and considering the implications of study findings to policy, practice, or research (stage five); and incorporating consultation with stakeholders as a required knowledge translation component of scoping study methodology (stage six). Lastly, we propose additional considerations for scoping study methodology in order to support the advancement, application and relevance of scoping studies in health research. Summary Specific recommendations to clarify and enhance this methodology are outlined for each stage of the Arksey and O'Malley framework. Continued debate and development about scoping study methodology will help to maximize the usefulness and rigor of scoping study findings within healthcare research and practice.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: a prospective exploratory study

              Background Within systematic reviews, when searching for relevant references, it is advisable to use multiple databases. However, searching databases is laborious and time-consuming, as syntax of search strategies are database specific. We aimed to determine the optimal combination of databases needed to conduct efficient searches in systematic reviews and whether the current practice in published reviews is appropriate. While previous studies determined the coverage of databases, we analyzed the actual retrieval from the original searches for systematic reviews. Methods Since May 2013, the first author prospectively recorded results from systematic review searches that he performed at his institution. PubMed was used to identify systematic reviews published using our search strategy results. For each published systematic review, we extracted the references of the included studies. Using the prospectively recorded results and the studies included in the publications, we calculated recall, precision, and number needed to read for single databases and databases in combination. We assessed the frequency at which databases and combinations would achieve varying levels of recall (i.e., 95%). For a sample of 200 recently published systematic reviews, we calculated how many had used enough databases to ensure 95% recall. Results A total of 58 published systematic reviews were included, totaling 1746 relevant references identified by our database searches, while 84 included references had been retrieved by other search methods. Sixteen percent of the included references (291 articles) were only found in a single database; Embase produced the most unique references (n = 132). The combination of Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar performed best, achieving an overall recall of 98.3 and 100% recall in 72% of systematic reviews. We estimate that 60% of published systematic reviews do not retrieve 95% of all available relevant references as many fail to search important databases. Other specialized databases, such as CINAHL or PsycINFO, add unique references to some reviews where the topic of the review is related to the focus of the database. Conclusions Optimal searches in systematic reviews should search at least Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar as a minimum requirement to guarantee adequate and efficient coverage. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Ageing and Society
                Ageing and Society
                Cambridge University Press (CUP)
                0144-686X
                1469-1779
                September 2021
                March 18 2020
                September 2021
                : 41
                : 9
                : 2026-2059
                Article
                10.1017/S0144686X20000094
                91a5c3fd-89fd-4e26-a56c-690a5fbea4b9
                © 2021

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article