MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determinants of hospital readmissions in older people with dementia: a narrative review

2024· other· en· W6977287264 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2024
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAutomated Road and Building Extraction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialCINAHLEthnic groupDementiaObservational studyContext (archaeology)Socioeconomic statusOlder peopleQualitative research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Over 50% of hospitalised older people with dementia have multimorbidity, and are at an increased risk of hospital readmissions within 30 days of their discharge. Between 20-40% of these readmissions may be preventable. Current research focuses on the physical causes of hospital readmissions. However, older people with dementia have additional psychosocial factors that are likely to increase their risk of readmissions. This narrative review aimed to identify psychosocial determinants of hospital readmissions, within the context of known physical factors. Methods Electronic databases MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsychInfo were searched from inception until July 2022 and followed up in February 2024. Quantitative and qualitative studies in English including adults aged 65 years and over with dementia, their care workers and informal carers were considered if they investigated hospital readmissions. An inductive approach was adopted to map the determinants of readmissions. Identified themes were described as narrative categories. Results Seventeen studies including 7,194,878 participants met our inclusion criteria from a total of 6369 articles. Sixteen quantitative studies included observational cohort and randomised controlled trial designs, and one study was qualitative. Ten studies were based in the USA, and one study each from Taiwan, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Japan, Denmark, and The Netherlands. Large hospital and insurance records provided data on over 2 million patients in one American study. Physical determinants included reduced mobility and accumulation of long-term conditions. Psychosocial determinants included inadequate hospital discharge planning, limited interdisciplinary collaboration, socioeconomic inequalities among ethnic minorities, and behavioural and psychological symptoms. Other important psychosocial factors such as loneliness, poverty and mental well-being, were not included in the studies. Conclusion Poorly defined roles and responsibilities of health and social care professionals and poor communication during care transitions, increase the risk of readmission in older people with dementia. These identified psychosocial determinants are likely to significantly contribute to readmissions. However, future research should focus on the understanding of the interaction between a host of psychosocial and physical determinants, and multidisciplinary interventions across care settings to reduce hospital readmissions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicAutomated Road and Building ExtractionFrench-language works237,207