Experiences of older adults accessing specialized health care services in rural and remote areas: a qualitative systematic review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to synthesize the literature on the experiences of older adults accessing specialized health care services while living in remote or rural areas. INTRODUCTION: Older persons with chronic illnesses often need specialized health care services. Those who live in remote or rural areas may have limited access to these specialized health care services, potentially leading to an increase in morbidity and mortality. Little is known about the experiences of older adults accessing specialized health care services while living in remote or rural areas. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review considered studies of persons 65 years and older who have self-identified as living in remote or rural areas. They will have, on at least one occasion, sought access in person to specialized health care services for a chronic condition such as cardiovascular disease, renal disease, diabetes, cancer, mental illness, or a major health concern beyond the scope of a primary care clinician, such as palliative care. METHODS: The search strategy aimed to find both published and unpublished studies in English from 1980 onward. An initial limited search of MEDLINE and CINAHL was undertaken in February 2017, followed by analysis of the text words contained in the title and abstract, and of the index terms used to describe the articles. This informed the development of a search strategy, which was tailored for each information source. The search was first conducted in December 2018 and rerun in November 2019. The databases searched included CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, and AgeLine. The search for unpublished studies included ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Google Scholar, and MedNar. Papers meeting the inclusion criteria were appraised by two independent reviewers for methodological quality. Data extraction was conducted according to the standardized data extraction tool from JBI. The qualitative research findings were pooled using the JBI method of meta-aggregation. RESULTS: Three papers were included in the review yielding a total of five findings and two categories. The categories were aggregated to form one synthesized finding: Distance often results in challenges accessing health care. For almost all older adults, the long distance to drive for specialized services was a barrier, especially for those living far out in the country, and led to delayed care. Lack of health education and peer support was also viewed as an issue. For one older adult, however, the distance was not seen as an issue; rather, it was viewed as an opportunity to enjoy time with family members. Participants noted that they had access to emergency care and, therefore, believed they were not putting their lives at risk by living in a rural area. The overall ConQual score was low. CONCLUSION: We believe that the distance to travel to obtain specialized services, as well as living in an area without specialized services, impacted this population's experience of obtaining specialized health care as well as their health. The spectrum of findings for our synthesized finding suggests that this was the case for some people, but not all. We speculate that people who have chosen to live outside an urban area or have lived in a rural area for a prolonged period come to accept their access to health care, including the distance to travel for health care and their potential for this to impact their health. The findings also suggest the older adults have a range of experiences; for some, distance was an issue and for others, it was not an issue. Some participants found living in a rural area impacted their care while others did not.
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,020 | 0,042 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,008 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».