2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Ageing and older people who use illicit opioids, cocaine or methamphetamine: a scoping review and literature map

      review-article

      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

          Aims

          To provide an overview of research literature on ageing and older people who use illicit opioids and stimulants by documenting the conceptual frameworks used and content areas that have been investigated.

          Methods

          We conducted a scoping review of literature relating to ageing and older people who use illicit stimulants and opioids, defining ‘older’ as 40 years and above. Primary studies, secondary studies and editorials were included. Searches were conducted in PubMed and Embase in July 2020 and March 2021; the Cochrane library was searched in November 2021. Charted data included methodological details, any conceptual frameworks explicitly applied by authors and the content areas that were the focus of the publication. We developed a hierarchy of content areas and mapped this to provide a visual guide to the research area.

          Results

          Of the 164 publications included in this review, only 16 explicitly applied a conceptual framework. Seven core content areas were identified, with most publications contributing to multiple content areas: acknowledgement of drug use among older people ( n = 64), health status ( n = 129), health services ( n = 109), drug use practices and patterns ( n = 84), social environments ( n = 74), the criminal legal system ( n = 28) and quality of life ( n = 15).

          Conclusions

          The literature regarding older people who use illicit drugs remains under‐theorized. Conceptual frameworks are rarely applied and few have been purposely adapted to this population. Health status and health services access and use are among the most frequently researched topics in this area.

          Related collections

          Most cited references192

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

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
            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: not found

              Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

              Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                sarah.larney@umontreal.ca
                Journal
                Addiction
                Addiction
                10.1111/(ISSN)1360-0443
                ADD
                Addiction (Abingdon, England)
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                0965-2140
                1360-0443
                10 February 2022
                August 2022
                : 117
                : 8 ( doiID: 10.1111/add.v117.8 )
                : 2168-2188
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Centre de Recherche du Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal (CR‐CHUM) Montréal Québec Canada
                [ 2 ] Department of Social and Preventative Medicine School of Public Health, Université de Montréal Montreal Québec Canada
                [ 3 ] Department of Family Medicine and Emergency Medicine Université de Montréal Montreal Québec Canada
                [ 4 ] Department of Family Medicine McGill University Montreal Québec Canada
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Dr Sarah Larney PhD, 900 rue Saint‐Denis, porte R14‐406, Montréal, Québec H2X 0A9, Canada.

                Email: sarah.larney@ 123456umontreal.ca

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3484-6456
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5602-4963
                Article
                ADD15813
                10.1111/add.15813
                9544522
                35072313
                c4fcb119-a268-4851-9531-c729753886c2
                © 2022 The Authors. Addiction published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for the Study of Addiction.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                : 25 May 2021
                : 06 January 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 2, Pages: 21, Words: 15684
                Funding
                Funded by: Canadian Institutes of Health Research , doi 10.13039/501100000024;
                Award ID: PJT‐165880
                Funded by: CanHepC
                Funded by: Fonds de Recherche du Québec ‐ Santé , doi 10.13039/501100000156;
                Award ID: 296569
                Categories
                Review
                Reviews
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                August 2022
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.2.0 mode:remove_FC converted:07.10.2022

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                ageing,illicit drug use,older adults,older people who use drugs,opioids,people who use drugs,stimulants

                Comments

                Comment on this article