Risk factors for infection in older adults with home care: a mixed methods systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Worldwide, home care in the form of home healthcare and home help, has become increasingly more available. This systematic review aims to provide a deeper understanding of factors that are of particular importance for infection control in the home care setting for older adults. Five databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, ProQuest, Web of Science, CINAHL) for eligible studies using any research design reporting on individual, medical, behavioral and environmental factors. Retrieved studies were screened and assessed for quality. The Joanna Briggs Institute manual guided the research process and the work of generating a synthesis. Qualitative findings were compiled using meta-aggregation. For quantitative evidence, meta-analyses were conducted when possible. Of 19,484 unique records, 27 studies (7 cohort studies, 9 cross-sectional and 11 qualitative) were included in the review. Risk factors for infection reported in the quantitative studies referred to individual, medical, social, behavioral, environmental, and organisational aspects. Meta-analyses showed associations between urinary catheter use (OR 3.97, 95%CI 2.56-6.15) and limited mobility (OR 1.49, 95%CI 1.31-1.68), respectively, and risk of infection. Pooled ORs of urinary incontinence and risk of infection were not statistically significant. Findings from the qualitative studies covered perceived and observed risk factors to infection control and prevention. The evidence resulted in five synthesised findings covering attitudes, behaviors, home environment, personal interactions, lack of equipment, unsafe disposal of material, pets, unsafe practices and procedures, and lack of training. The combined quantitative and qualitative evidence sheds light on separate yet interconnected elements of risks for infection that may reinforce each other, potentially exposing vulnerable older adults to amplified risks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.026 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.047 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".