Top

Systematic Reviews

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Protocol

Experiences of aging in place in the United States: protocol for a systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies

Authors: Amy Rosenwohl-Mack, Karen Schumacher, Min-Lin Fang, Yoshimi Fukuoka

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Background

By 2035, older adults will outnumber children for the first time in the United States (US). In light of its aging population, the US has supported services focused on enabling older adults to continue living in their current homes, a model commonly described as “aging in place.” The lived experience of aging in place is not well documented in existing systematic reviews. The aims of this systematic review are to synthesize and evaluate the existing qualitative evidence on experiences of aging in place in the US and identify knowledge gaps and directions for future studies.

Methods

Six electronic bibliographic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Sociological Abstracts) will be searched. Studies presenting qualitative data on the experiences of older adults currently aging in place in the US will be included. Covidence software will be used to screen studies and extract data. The Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for qualitative research will be used to assess quality and risk of bias of included studies. We will use meta-ethnography, following the method described by Noblit and Hare, to synthesize and evaluate the results of the included studies.

Discussion

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to integrate and synthesize the findings of qualitative studies of aging in place focusing on older adults in the US. The findings of this review will provide in-depth knowledge on lived experiences of aging in place and address important gaps in existing work.

Systematic review registration

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42018102847

Available only for authorised users

Vespa J, Armstrong DM, Medina L. Demographic turning points for the United States: population projections for 2020 to 2060. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau; 2018. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2018/demo/P25_1144.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2018

National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2016: with chartbook on long-term trends in health. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2017. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus16.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2018

Buttorff C, Ruder T, Bauman M. Multiple chronic conditions in the United States. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation; 2017. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/tools/TL200/TL221/RAND_TL221.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2018CrossRef

Siegler EL, Lama SD, Knight MG, Laureano E, Reid MC. Community-based supports and services for older adults: a primer for clinicians. J Geriatr. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/678625.CrossRef

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Healthy Places Terminology. 2009. https://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/terminology.htm. Accessed 3 July 2018.

Wysocki A, Butler M, Kane RL, Kane RA, Shippee T, Sainfort F. Long-term care for older adults: a review of home and community-based services versus institutional care. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2012. https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/long-term-care-adults_research.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2018

American Association of Retired Persons. Beyond 50.05 a report to the nation on livable communities: creating environments for successful aging. Washington, DC; 2005. https://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/il/beyond_50_communities.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2018

Gregory A, Mackintosh S, Kumar S, Grech C. Experiences of health care for older people who need support to live at home: a systematic review of the qualitative literature. Geriatr Nurs. 2017;38(4):315–24.CrossRef

Karlsen C, Ludvigsen MS, Moe CE, Haraldstad K, Thygesen E. Experiences of community-dwelling older adults with the use of telecare in home care services: a qualitative systematic review. JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2017;15(12):2913–80.CrossRef

10.

Graybill EM, McMeekin P, Wildman J. Can aging in place be cost effective? A systematic review. PLoS One. 2014;9(7):e102705.CrossRef

11.

Peek ST, Wouters EJ, van Hoof J, Luijkx KG, Boeije HR, Vrijhoef HJ. Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in place: a systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2014;83(4):235–48.CrossRef

12.

Li J, Xu L, Chi I. Challenges and resilience related to aging in the United States among older Chinese immigrants. Aging Ment Health. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2017.1377686.

13.

Boggs JM, Dickman Portz J, King DK, Wright LA, Helander K, Retrum JH, et al. Perspectives of LGBTQ older adults on aging in place: a qualitative investigation. J Homosex. 2017;64(11):1539–60.CrossRef

14.

Leigh-Hunt N, Bagguley D, Bash K, Turner V, Turnbull S, Valtorta N, et al. An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness. Public Health. 2017;152:157–71.CrossRef

15.

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.

16.

Noblit GW, Hare RD. Meta-ethnography: synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park: SAGE; 1988.CrossRef

17.

Atkins S, Lewin S, Smith H, Engel M, Fretheim A, Volmink J. Conducting a meta-ethnography of qualitative literature: lessons learnt. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-21.

18.

Schutz A. Collected papers I: the problem of social reality. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff; 1962.

19.

Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012;22(10):1435–43.CrossRef

20.

Ferraro KF, Shippee TP. Aging and cumulative inequality: how does inequality get under the skin? Gerontologist. 2009;49(3):333–43.CrossRef

21.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.CrossRef

22.

Analytics C. Endnote reference management software. Version X8.2. Philadelphia, PA: Clarivate Analytics; 2018.

23.

Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne: Veritas Health Innovation Ltd; 2013.

24.

Bochner AP. Criteria against ourselves. Qual Inq. 2000;6(2):266–72.CrossRef

25.

Tracy SJ. Qualitative quality: eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qual Inq. 2010;16(10):837–51.CrossRef

26.

Hannes K, Lockwood C, Pearson A. A comparative analysis of three online appraisal instruments’ ability to assess validity in qualitative research. Qual Health Res. 2010;20(12):1736–43.CrossRef

27.

The Joanna Briggs Institute. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools for use in JBI systematic reviews: checklist for qualitative research. 2017. http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/critical-appraisal-tools/JBI_Critical_Appraisal-Checklist_for_Qualitative_Research2017.pdf. Accessed 3 July 2018.

28.

Dixon-Woods M, Sutton A, Shaw R, Miller T, Smith J, Young B, Bonas S, Booth A, Jones D. Appraising qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a quantitative and qualitative comparison of three methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2007;12(1):42–7.CrossRef

29.

Lewin S, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Carlsen B, Colvin CJ, Gulmezoglu M, et al. Using qualitative evidence in decision making for health and social interventions: an approach to assess confidence in findings from qualitative evidence syntheses (GRADE-CERQual). PLoS Med. 2015;12(10):e1001895.CrossRef

30.

QSR International. NVivo qualitative data analysis software. Version 11.4.3. Doncaster, Victoria: QSR International Pty Ltd; 2010.

31.

Malpass A, Shaw A, Sharp D, Walter F, Feder G, Ridd M, et al. “Medication career” or “moral career”? The two sides of managing antidepressants: a meta-ethnography of patients’ experience of antidepressants. Soc Sci Med. 2009;68(1):154–68.CrossRef

32.

Golant SM. Commentary: irrational exuberance for the aging in place of vulnerable low-income older homeowners. J Aging Soc Policy. 2008;20:379–97.CrossRef

Title: Experiences of aging in place in the United States: protocol for a systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies
Authors: Amy Rosenwohl-Mack
Karen Schumacher
Min-Lin Fang
Yoshimi Fukuoka
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0820-8

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Experiences of aging in place in the United States: protocol for a systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Discussion

Systematic review registration

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

A systematic review and network meta-analysis comparing azacitidine and decitabine for the treatment of myelodysplastic syndrome

Information needs in people with diabetes mellitus: a systematic review

Realist-informed review of motivational interviewing for adolescent health behaviors

Evidence-based guidelines for physiotherapy management of patients with multiple myeloma: study protocol

Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting

Physical activity monitors to enhance the daily amount of physical activity in elderly—a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis