A systematic review on inequalities in accessing and using community-based social care in dementia.

IF 4.6 2区 医学 Q1 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
International psychogeriatrics Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-12 DOI:10.1017/S104161022300042X
Clarissa Giebel, Kerry Hanna, James Watson, Thomas Faulkner, Lena O'Connell, Sandra Smith, Warren James Donnellan
{"title":"A systematic review on inequalities in accessing and using community-based social care in dementia.","authors":"Clarissa Giebel, Kerry Hanna, James Watson, Thomas Faulkner, Lena O'Connell, Sandra Smith, Warren James Donnellan","doi":"10.1017/S104161022300042X","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate and synthesize the evidence base on barriers and facilitators to accessing and using community-based social care in dementia.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Mixed-methods systematic review.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Community-based social care (such as day care, respite care, paid home care, and peer support groups).</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>People living with dementia and unpaid carers.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>Seven databases were searched in March 2022, including English and German evidence published from 2000 focusing on inequalities in community-based social care for dementia across the globe. Titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers, with all full texts screened by two reviewers also. Study quality was assessed using QualSyst.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 3,904 screened records, 39 papers were included. The majority of studies were qualitative, with 23 countries represented. Barriers and facilitators could be categorized into the following five categories/themes: situational, psychological, interpersonal, structural, and cultural. Barriers were notably more prominent than facilitators and were multifaceted, with many factors hindering or facilitating access to social care linked together.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>People with dementia and carers experience significant barriers in accessing care in the community, and a varied approach on multiple levels is required to address systemic and individual-level barriers to enable more equitable access to care for all.</p>","PeriodicalId":14368,"journal":{"name":"International psychogeriatrics","volume":" ","pages":"540-563"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International psychogeriatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S104161022300042X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate and synthesize the evidence base on barriers and facilitators to accessing and using community-based social care in dementia.

Design: Mixed-methods systematic review.

Setting: Community-based social care (such as day care, respite care, paid home care, and peer support groups).

Participants: People living with dementia and unpaid carers.

Measurements: Seven databases were searched in March 2022, including English and German evidence published from 2000 focusing on inequalities in community-based social care for dementia across the globe. Titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers, with all full texts screened by two reviewers also. Study quality was assessed using QualSyst.

Results: From 3,904 screened records, 39 papers were included. The majority of studies were qualitative, with 23 countries represented. Barriers and facilitators could be categorized into the following five categories/themes: situational, psychological, interpersonal, structural, and cultural. Barriers were notably more prominent than facilitators and were multifaceted, with many factors hindering or facilitating access to social care linked together.

Conclusions: People with dementia and carers experience significant barriers in accessing care in the community, and a varied approach on multiple levels is required to address systemic and individual-level barriers to enable more equitable access to care for all.

对痴呆症患者获取和使用社区社会护理不平等现象的系统回顾。
目的:评价和综合痴呆患者获得和使用社区社会护理的障碍和促进因素。设计:混合方法系统评价。环境:以社区为基础的社会护理(如日托、临时护理、有偿家庭护理和同伴支持小组)。参与者:痴呆症患者和无偿护理人员。测量方法:我们于2022年3月检索了7个数据库,包括2000年以来发表的英语和德语证据,这些证据关注的是全球以社区为基础的痴呆症社会护理中的不平等现象。题目和摘要由两名审稿人筛选,所有全文也由两名审稿人筛选。使用QualSyst评估研究质量。结果:从3904份筛选记录中,共纳入39篇论文。大多数研究是定性的,涉及23个国家。障碍和促进因素可以分为以下五类/主题:情境、心理、人际、结构和文化。障碍明显比促进因素更为突出,而且是多方面的,许多阻碍或促进获得社会照顾的因素相互联系在一起。结论:痴呆症患者和护理人员在获得社区护理方面存在重大障碍,需要在多个层面采取多种方法来解决系统和个人层面的障碍,以使所有人都能更公平地获得护理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International psychogeriatrics
International psychogeriatrics 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
8.60%
发文量
217
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: A highly respected, multidisciplinary journal, International Psychogeriatrics publishes high quality original research papers in the field of psychogeriatrics. The journal aims to be the leading peer reviewed journal dealing with all aspects of the mental health of older people throughout the world. Circulated to over 1,000 members of the International Psychogeriatric Association, International Psychogeriatrics also features important editorials, provocative debates, literature reviews, book reviews and letters to the editor.
×
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