质性研究中脆弱性的定义:质性系统回顾。

IF 1.6 Q4 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Journal of Aging Research Pub Date : 2021-06-02 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2021/6285058
Deborah A Lekan, Susan K Collins, Audai A Hayajneh
{"title":"质性研究中脆弱性的定义:质性系统回顾。","authors":"Deborah A Lekan,&nbsp;Susan K Collins,&nbsp;Audai A Hayajneh","doi":"10.1155/2021/6285058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The purpose of this qualitative systematic review was to examine how frailty was conceptually and operationally defined for participant inclusion in qualitative research focused on the lived experience of frailty in community-living frail older adults. Search of six electronic databases, 1994-2019, yielded 25 studies. Data collection involved extracting the definition of frailty from the study aim, background, literature review, methods, and sampling strategy in each research study. Quality appraisal indicated that 13 studies (52%) demonstrated potential researcher bias based on insufficient information about participant recruitment, sampling, and relationship between the researcher and participant. Content analysis and concept mapping were applied for data synthesis. Although frailty was generally defined as a multidimensional, biopsychosocial construct with loss of resilience and vulnerability to adverse outcomes, most studies defined the study population based on older age and physical impairments derived from subjective assessment by the researcher, a healthcare professional, or a family member. However, 13 studies (52%) used objective or performance-based quantitative measures to classify participant frailty. There was no consistency across studies in standardized measures or objective assessment of frailty. Synthesis of the findings yielded four themes: Time, Vulnerability, Loss, and Relationships. The predominance of older age and physical limitations as defining characteristics of frailty raises questions about whether participants were frail, since many older adults at advanced age and with physical limitations are not frail. Lack of clear criteria to classify frailty and reliance on subjective assessment introduces the risk for bias, threatens the validity and interpretation of findings, and hinders transferability of findings to other contexts. Clear frailty inclusion and exclusion criteria and a standardized approach in the reporting of how frailty is conceptually and operationally defined in study abstracts and the methodology used is necessary to facilitate dissemination and development of metasynthesis studies that aggregate qualitative research findings that can be used to inform future research and applications in clinical practice to improve healthcare.</p>","PeriodicalId":14933,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Aging Research","volume":"2021 ","pages":"6285058"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8189777/pdf/","citationCount":"10","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Definitions of Frailty in Qualitative Research: A Qualitative Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Deborah A Lekan,&nbsp;Susan K Collins,&nbsp;Audai A Hayajneh\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2021/6285058\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The purpose of this qualitative systematic review was to examine how frailty was conceptually and operationally defined for participant inclusion in qualitative research focused on the lived experience of frailty in community-living frail older adults. Search of six electronic databases, 1994-2019, yielded 25 studies. Data collection involved extracting the definition of frailty from the study aim, background, literature review, methods, and sampling strategy in each research study. Quality appraisal indicated that 13 studies (52%) demonstrated potential researcher bias based on insufficient information about participant recruitment, sampling, and relationship between the researcher and participant. Content analysis and concept mapping were applied for data synthesis. Although frailty was generally defined as a multidimensional, biopsychosocial construct with loss of resilience and vulnerability to adverse outcomes, most studies defined the study population based on older age and physical impairments derived from subjective assessment by the researcher, a healthcare professional, or a family member. However, 13 studies (52%) used objective or performance-based quantitative measures to classify participant frailty. There was no consistency across studies in standardized measures or objective assessment of frailty. Synthesis of the findings yielded four themes: Time, Vulnerability, Loss, and Relationships. The predominance of older age and physical limitations as defining characteristics of frailty raises questions about whether participants were frail, since many older adults at advanced age and with physical limitations are not frail. Lack of clear criteria to classify frailty and reliance on subjective assessment introduces the risk for bias, threatens the validity and interpretation of findings, and hinders transferability of findings to other contexts. Clear frailty inclusion and exclusion criteria and a standardized approach in the reporting of how frailty is conceptually and operationally defined in study abstracts and the methodology used is necessary to facilitate dissemination and development of metasynthesis studies that aggregate qualitative research findings that can be used to inform future research and applications in clinical practice to improve healthcare.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14933,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Aging Research\",\"volume\":\"2021 \",\"pages\":\"6285058\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8189777/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"10\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Aging Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6285058\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Aging Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6285058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

摘要

本定性系统回顾的目的是研究如何在概念上和操作上定义脆弱,以便在定性研究中纳入参与者,重点关注社区生活体弱老年人的脆弱生活经验。在1994-2019年的6个电子数据库中检索,获得了25项研究。数据收集包括从每项研究的研究目的、背景、文献综述、方法和抽样策略中提取脆弱性的定义。质量评估表明,13项研究(52%)显示出潜在的研究者偏见,这是基于参与者招募、抽样和研究者与参与者之间关系的信息不足。应用内容分析和概念映射进行数据综合。虽然虚弱通常被定义为一种多维的、生物心理社会结构,具有恢复力的丧失和对不良结果的脆弱性,但大多数研究是基于年龄和研究者、医疗保健专业人员或家庭成员主观评估得出的身体损伤来定义研究人群的。然而,13项研究(52%)使用客观或基于表现的定量措施对参与者的虚弱进行分类。在虚弱的标准化测量或客观评估方面,研究之间没有一致性。综合研究结果得出了四个主题:时间、脆弱、失去和关系。年龄较大和身体限制作为虚弱的定义特征的优势引发了关于参与者是否虚弱的问题,因为许多年龄较大和身体限制的老年人并不虚弱。缺乏对脆弱进行分类的明确标准和对主观评估的依赖会带来偏见的风险,威胁到研究结果的有效性和解释,并阻碍研究结果在其他情况下的可转移性。明确的脆弱性纳入和排除标准,以及在报告研究摘要中如何在概念和操作上定义脆弱性的标准化方法,以及所使用的方法,对于促进meta合成研究的传播和发展是必要的,meta合成研究汇总了定性研究结果,可用于为未来的研究和临床实践中的应用提供信息,以改善医疗保健。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Definitions of Frailty in Qualitative Research: A Qualitative Systematic Review.

Definitions of Frailty in Qualitative Research: A Qualitative Systematic Review.

Definitions of Frailty in Qualitative Research: A Qualitative Systematic Review.

Definitions of Frailty in Qualitative Research: A Qualitative Systematic Review.

The purpose of this qualitative systematic review was to examine how frailty was conceptually and operationally defined for participant inclusion in qualitative research focused on the lived experience of frailty in community-living frail older adults. Search of six electronic databases, 1994-2019, yielded 25 studies. Data collection involved extracting the definition of frailty from the study aim, background, literature review, methods, and sampling strategy in each research study. Quality appraisal indicated that 13 studies (52%) demonstrated potential researcher bias based on insufficient information about participant recruitment, sampling, and relationship between the researcher and participant. Content analysis and concept mapping were applied for data synthesis. Although frailty was generally defined as a multidimensional, biopsychosocial construct with loss of resilience and vulnerability to adverse outcomes, most studies defined the study population based on older age and physical impairments derived from subjective assessment by the researcher, a healthcare professional, or a family member. However, 13 studies (52%) used objective or performance-based quantitative measures to classify participant frailty. There was no consistency across studies in standardized measures or objective assessment of frailty. Synthesis of the findings yielded four themes: Time, Vulnerability, Loss, and Relationships. The predominance of older age and physical limitations as defining characteristics of frailty raises questions about whether participants were frail, since many older adults at advanced age and with physical limitations are not frail. Lack of clear criteria to classify frailty and reliance on subjective assessment introduces the risk for bias, threatens the validity and interpretation of findings, and hinders transferability of findings to other contexts. Clear frailty inclusion and exclusion criteria and a standardized approach in the reporting of how frailty is conceptually and operationally defined in study abstracts and the methodology used is necessary to facilitate dissemination and development of metasynthesis studies that aggregate qualitative research findings that can be used to inform future research and applications in clinical practice to improve healthcare.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Aging Research
Journal of Aging Research Medicine-Geriatrics and Gerontology
CiteScore
5.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
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