MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4292079624 · doi:10.11124/jbies-21-00452

Experiences of health care personnel with promoting a sense of home for older adults living in residential care facilities: a qualitative systematic review

2022· review· en· W4292079624 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maria Matarese, Lucía Mercedes Mauro, Ippolito Notarnicola, Alessandro Cinque, Sara Bonacci, Giuliana Covelli, Stefano Casciato

Notice bibliographique

RevueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2022
Typereview
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCINAHLCritical appraisalPsycINFOHealth careNursingScopusQualitative researchMedicineGerontologyIndependent livingMEDLINEQualitative propertyInclusion (mineral)PsychologyPsychological interventionSociologyAlternative medicinePolitical science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to evaluate the experiences of health care personnel with promoting a sense of home for older adults living in residential care facilities. INTRODUCTION: Moving to a residential care facility represents a critical moment for older adults. It disrupts the continuity of their lives and distances them from significant people and objects. Health care personnel working in residential care facilities can help create a sense of home for residents. There is a lack of qualitative reviews reporting health care personnel's experiences with promoting a sense of home for older adults living in residential care settings. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Qualitative studies exploring the experiences of health care personnel with promoting a sense of home for people aged 65 and older living in residential care facilities, including, but not limited to, nursing homes, residential care homes, retirement homes, assisted-living facilities, and skilled nursing facilities were included in the review. METHODS: This review followed a meta-aggregation approach according to JBI methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence. PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, and ILISI databases were searched, as well as Google Scholar, OpenGrey, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Studies published in English, Italian, French, Portuguese, or Spanish were considered for inclusion. Study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, and data synthesis were conducted by 2 independent reviewers using the JBI approach and JBI standardized tools. Finally, the ConQual approach was used to assess the confidence level in the study findings. RESULTS: Seven studies conducted in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2014 and 2020 were included. The studies reported the experiences of nurses, nurse aides, and directors of facilities. From the aggregation of 69 findings, 14 categories were generated that were then grouped into 3 synthesized findings describing the experiences of health care personnel as follows: the promotion of residents' sense of home in residential care facilities is influenced by i) the built environment, including private, single rooms with bathrooms, homelike-domestic spaces, personalization of residents' rooms, homelike interior and exterior design, and non-hospital-like environment; ii) the national and local policy and regulations, and work organization, as well as leadership of managers and directors; and iii) the facilities' care culture, including philosophy of care, maintaining autonomy of residents and ties with the community, participation in domestic and recreational activities, and family relationships. Based on the ConQual scores, the confidence level in the synthesized findings was graded as low. CONCLUSIONS: According to health care personnel, the physical environment, interpersonal and social aspects, regulations, work organization, and the facilities' care culture can contribute to creating a sense of home for older adults in residential care facilities. The evidence derived from this review can help health care personnel, facility directors, and policy-makers identify the changes that should be implemented to promote a sense of home in older adults residing in care facilities. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42020214383.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche, Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Revue systématique · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,016
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,015
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0060,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

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 Opus0,067
Tête enseignante GPT0,447
Écart entre enseignants0,380 · 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 tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

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

Citations5
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJBI Evidence SynthesisMême sujetGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesTravaux en français237 207