Rebecca J Howe, Katherine Rieke, Thomas Bayer, Htun Ja Mai, Jennifer L Sullivan, Jane A Driver, Taylor Rickard, Thomas A Trikalinos, James Rudolph, Ellen McCreedy, Eric Jutkowitz
{"title":"Strategies and Outcomes of Age-Friendly Health System Implementation in Outpatient Settings: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Rebecca J Howe, Katherine Rieke, Thomas Bayer, Htun Ja Mai, Jennifer L Sullivan, Jane A Driver, Taylor Rickard, Thomas A Trikalinos, James Rudolph, Ellen McCreedy, Eric Jutkowitz","doi":"10.1177/00469580251318244","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Age-Friendly Health System (AFHS) movement has spread widely in recent years, with nearly 5000 healthcare organizations across the country recognized as Age-Friendly. Despite this broad recognition, there is little focus on how AFHS are implemented and the impact of implementation. The objectives of this study were to describe the strategies employed to support AFHS implementation in outpatient settings and to identify the measures used to evaluate implementation and effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review of literature from multiple databases spanning 2015 to March 2024, identified eligible studies using predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, and extracted key data (eg, study design, study population, implementation strategies, outcomes/measures). We identified ten eligible studies from primary care clinics (N = 8), convenient care clinics (N = 1) and a cancer center (N = 1). The studies employed over 65 implementation strategies and 98 outcomes or measures. The vast majority of measures mapped to components of the 4Ms (Mobility, Mentation, Medication, What Matters), with up to ten measures per M category. Five of ten studies had reporting discrepancies and four did not fully define outcomes. The ten included studies serve as clear examples for the need for more evidence to support AFHS implementation in outpatient settings. Existing research lacks strategy specification and standardization of measures. We present gaps and opportunities to advance from AFHS \"recognition\" to impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":54976,"journal":{"name":"Inquiry-The Journal of Health Care Organization Provision and Financing","volume":"62 ","pages":"469580251318244"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11826848/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Inquiry-The Journal of Health Care Organization Provision and Financing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00469580251318244","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The Age-Friendly Health System (AFHS) movement has spread widely in recent years, with nearly 5000 healthcare organizations across the country recognized as Age-Friendly. Despite this broad recognition, there is little focus on how AFHS are implemented and the impact of implementation. The objectives of this study were to describe the strategies employed to support AFHS implementation in outpatient settings and to identify the measures used to evaluate implementation and effectiveness. We conducted a systematic review of literature from multiple databases spanning 2015 to March 2024, identified eligible studies using predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria, and extracted key data (eg, study design, study population, implementation strategies, outcomes/measures). We identified ten eligible studies from primary care clinics (N = 8), convenient care clinics (N = 1) and a cancer center (N = 1). The studies employed over 65 implementation strategies and 98 outcomes or measures. The vast majority of measures mapped to components of the 4Ms (Mobility, Mentation, Medication, What Matters), with up to ten measures per M category. Five of ten studies had reporting discrepancies and four did not fully define outcomes. The ten included studies serve as clear examples for the need for more evidence to support AFHS implementation in outpatient settings. Existing research lacks strategy specification and standardization of measures. We present gaps and opportunities to advance from AFHS "recognition" to impact.
期刊介绍:
INQUIRY is a peer-reviewed open access journal whose msision is to to improve health by sharing research spanning health care, including public health, health services, and health policy.