Out-of-pocket expenses related to aging in place for frail older people: a scoping review protocol
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review was to map and describe the available evidence reporting out-of-pocket expenses related to aging in place for older people with frailty and their caregivers. INTRODUCTION: As the global population ages, there has been increasing attention on supporting older people to live at home in the community as they experience health and functional changes. Older people with frailty often require a variety of supports and services to live in the community, yet the out-of-pockets costs associated with these resources are often not accounted for in health and social care literature. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Sources that reported on the financial expenses incurred by older people (60 years or older) with frailty living in the community, or on the expenses incurred by their family and friend caregivers, were eligible for inclusion in the review. METHODS: We searched for published and unpublished (ie, policy papers, theses, and dissertations) studies written in English or French between 2001 and 2019. The following databases were searched: CINAHL, MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and Public Affairs Index. We also searched for gray literature in a selection of websites and digital repositories. JBI scoping review methodology was used, and we consulted with a patient and family advisory group to support the relevance of the review. RESULTS: A total of 42 sources were included in the review, including two policy papers and 40 research papers. The majority of the papers were from the United States (n = 18), with others from Canada (n = 6), the United Kingdom (n = 3), Japan (n = 2), and one each from Australia, Brazil, China, Denmark, Israel, Italy, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan, and Turkey. The included research studies used various research designs, including cross-sectional (n = 18), qualitative (n = 15), randomized controlled trials (n = 2), longitudinal (n = 2), cost effectiveness (n = 1), quasi-experimental (n = 1), and mixed methods (n = 1). The included sources used the term "frailty" inconsistently and used various methods to demonstrate frailty. Categories of out-of-pocket expenses found in the literature included home care, medication, cleaning and laundry, food, transportation, medical equipment, respite, assistive devices, home modifications, and insurance. Five sources reported on out-of-pocket expenses associated with people who were frail and had dementia, and seven reported on the out-of-pocket expenses for caregivers of people with frailty. While seven articles reported on specific programs, there was very little consistency in how out-of-pocket expenses were used as outcome measures. Several studies used measures of combined out-of-pocket expenses, but there was no standard approach to reporting aggregate out-of-pocket expenses. CONCLUSIONS: Contextual factors are important to the experiences of out-of-pocket spending for older people with frailty. There is a need to develop a standardized approach to measuring out-of-pocket expenses in order to support further synthesis of the literature. We suggest a measure of out-of-pocket spending as a percentage of family income. The review supports education for health care providers to assess the out-of-pocket spending of community-dwelling older people with frailty and their caregivers. Health care providers should also be aware of the local policies and resources that are available to help older people with frailty address their out-of-pocket spending.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,012 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».