MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2803236116 · doi:10.11124/jbisrir-2016-003123

The influence of occupation on wellbeing, as experienced by the elderly: a systematic review

2018· review· en· W2803236116 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christina Jessen-Winge, Mille Nyboe Petersen, Anne-Le Morville

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports · 2018
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueOccupational Therapy Practice and Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésGerontologyPsychologySystematic reviewMedicineMEDLINEPolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to synthesize knowledge regarding which types of occupations the elderly perceive as important to and supporting their overall wellbeing. INTRODUCTION: Being active is an important part of managing the daily challenges of advanced old age. Occupational therapy and occupational science are based on the premise that a person's occupations are intertwined with their health and are thus needed for them to experience a meaningful life and improve their wellbeing. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review, which included independently living elderly people aged 65 and over living in Europe, the USA, Canada and Australia, sought to uncover if the elderly see any specific types of occupations as enhancing their wellbeing. This review included qualitative studies with designs including, but not limited to, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography and action research. METHODS: A three-step search strategy using Joanna Briggs Institute methodology was utilized. Both published and unpublished studies were searched. The following databases were searched for studies up to 2017: CINAHL, Nursing and Allied Health Source, Web of Science, PubMed and OpenGrey. Using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research, two independent reviewers assessed whether each study had the methodological quality required to be included in the review. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. The standardized JBI data extraction tool for interpretive and critical research was used to extract data from the included studies. JBI tools were used to pool the qualitative research findings. The findings were then aggregated through a process of rating according to quality, and categorized according to similarity in meaning, which generated a set of statements for each category. These categories were then subjected to a meta-synthesis to produce a single comprehensive set of synthesized findings useful as a basis for evidence-based practice. RESULTS: All three of the included studies utilized qualitative interviews and followed a phenomenological approach. The studies included only participants aged 85 and over. Thirty-five findings were extracted and grouped into four categories, which were synthesized into two meta-syntheses: 1) The importance of "doing" alone - to feel good, I have to be the master of my own life; and 2) Old habits never die - a structured day is a good day. Based on the dependability and credibility of the three studies, the ranking was high (see Summary of Findings). CONCLUSIONS: The present review shows that two factors enhance elderly people's wellbeing: first, variation and independence in undertaking activities; second, having a choice between the occupations and a structure of activities that make up daily life. The two factors are influenced by a balance between having activities alone and with others. This review is not intended to identify specific occupations that enhance elderly people's wellbeing, but rather to indicate which types of occupations enhance the wellbeing of the elderly, and provide value and meaning to their daily lives.Both the dependability and the credibility of the studies have been rated as moderate.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,012
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: Revue systématique
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,013
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,063

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0120,056
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0060,005
Bibliométrie0,0130,013
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,002
Communication savante0,0040,004
Science ouverte0,0020,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,159
Tête enseignante GPT0,558
Écart entre enseignants0,398 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeRevue systématique
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations20
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation ReportsMême sujetOccupational Therapy Practice and ResearchTravaux en français237 207