Joost D. Wammes PhD , Isabelle Vullings MSc , Dionne S. Kringos PhD , Bram Wouterse PhD , Joost G. Daams MSc , Miranda Langendam PhD , Janet L. MacNeil Vroomen PhD
{"title":"评估就地养老改革政策的绩效指标:范围审查和证据图。","authors":"Joost D. Wammes PhD , Isabelle Vullings MSc , Dionne S. Kringos PhD , Bram Wouterse PhD , Joost G. Daams MSc , Miranda Langendam PhD , Janet L. MacNeil Vroomen PhD","doi":"10.1016/j.jamda.2024.105249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Many countries have reformed their long-term care system to promote aging-in-place. Currently, there is no framework for evaluating these reforms. This review aimed to identify performance indicators used for aging-in-place reform evaluation.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>A scoping review and evidence map of literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.</div></div><div><h3>Setting and participants</h3><div>Long-term care reforms aimed at aging-in-place.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The databases Medline, Embase, and Academic Search Premier were searched. Three independent reviewers screened the articles. Pairs of data collectors extracted the data, with conflicts determined by agreement or by a third reviewer. Performance indicators were classified into the Donabedian framework as structure, process, or outcome.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We retained 58 articles. From the included articles, 28 discussed structure indicators, comprising of 71 indicators in the domains expenditures, care availability, and workforce; 36 articles included process indicators comprising 80 indicators about care utilization, service quality, and service satisfaction; and 20 articles reported on outcome indicators comprising 34 indicators about health status and informal caregiving.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion and Implications</h3><div>Most articles focused on the performance domains care expenditures and care utilization, whereas measuring effects on older adults and society was less common. A framework assessing system and services delivery indicators and the effects on those aging-in-place with actionable performance indicators is recommended.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":17180,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Medical Directors Association","volume":"25 11","pages":"Article 105249"},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Performance Indicators for the Assessment of Aging-In-Place Reform Policies: A Scoping Review and Evidence Map\",\"authors\":\"Joost D. Wammes PhD , Isabelle Vullings MSc , Dionne S. Kringos PhD , Bram Wouterse PhD , Joost G. Daams MSc , Miranda Langendam PhD , Janet L. MacNeil Vroomen PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jamda.2024.105249\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Many countries have reformed their long-term care system to promote aging-in-place. Currently, there is no framework for evaluating these reforms. This review aimed to identify performance indicators used for aging-in-place reform evaluation.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>A scoping review and evidence map of literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.</div></div><div><h3>Setting and participants</h3><div>Long-term care reforms aimed at aging-in-place.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The databases Medline, Embase, and Academic Search Premier were searched. Three independent reviewers screened the articles. Pairs of data collectors extracted the data, with conflicts determined by agreement or by a third reviewer. Performance indicators were classified into the Donabedian framework as structure, process, or outcome.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We retained 58 articles. From the included articles, 28 discussed structure indicators, comprising of 71 indicators in the domains expenditures, care availability, and workforce; 36 articles included process indicators comprising 80 indicators about care utilization, service quality, and service satisfaction; and 20 articles reported on outcome indicators comprising 34 indicators about health status and informal caregiving.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion and Implications</h3><div>Most articles focused on the performance domains care expenditures and care utilization, whereas measuring effects on older adults and society was less common. A framework assessing system and services delivery indicators and the effects on those aging-in-place with actionable performance indicators is recommended.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17180,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Medical Directors Association\",\"volume\":\"25 11\",\"pages\":\"Article 105249\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Medical Directors Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525861024006716\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Medical Directors Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525861024006716","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Performance Indicators for the Assessment of Aging-In-Place Reform Policies: A Scoping Review and Evidence Map
Objectives
Many countries have reformed their long-term care system to promote aging-in-place. Currently, there is no framework for evaluating these reforms. This review aimed to identify performance indicators used for aging-in-place reform evaluation.
Design
A scoping review and evidence map of literature following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist.
Setting and participants
Long-term care reforms aimed at aging-in-place.
Methods
The databases Medline, Embase, and Academic Search Premier were searched. Three independent reviewers screened the articles. Pairs of data collectors extracted the data, with conflicts determined by agreement or by a third reviewer. Performance indicators were classified into the Donabedian framework as structure, process, or outcome.
Results
We retained 58 articles. From the included articles, 28 discussed structure indicators, comprising of 71 indicators in the domains expenditures, care availability, and workforce; 36 articles included process indicators comprising 80 indicators about care utilization, service quality, and service satisfaction; and 20 articles reported on outcome indicators comprising 34 indicators about health status and informal caregiving.
Conclusion and Implications
Most articles focused on the performance domains care expenditures and care utilization, whereas measuring effects on older adults and society was less common. A framework assessing system and services delivery indicators and the effects on those aging-in-place with actionable performance indicators is recommended.
期刊介绍:
JAMDA, the official journal of AMDA - The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine, is a leading peer-reviewed publication that offers practical information and research geared towards healthcare professionals in the post-acute and long-term care fields. It is also a valuable resource for policy-makers, organizational leaders, educators, and advocates.
The journal provides essential information for various healthcare professionals such as medical directors, attending physicians, nurses, consultant pharmacists, geriatric psychiatrists, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, physical and occupational therapists, social workers, and others involved in providing, overseeing, and promoting quality