Strategies and Outcomes of Age-Friendly Health System Implementation in Outpatient Settings: A Systematic Review.

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
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.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
192
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信