William Byrd, M. Salcher-Konrad, Siân Smith, A. Comas-Herrera
{"title":"在Covid-19大流行期间研究了哪些长期护理干预措施和政策措施?对2020年发表的科学证据进行快速制图审查的结果","authors":"William Byrd, M. Salcher-Konrad, Siân Smith, A. Comas-Herrera","doi":"10.31389/jltc.97","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"pandemic, long-term care researchers have aimed to generate evidence rapidly to inform the pandemic response. It is unclear which areas were prioritised during this period of rapid evidence generation. Objectives: We aimed to map the international scientific evidence on interventions and policy measures to mitigate the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on people who use and provide long-term care. Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, rapid mapping review of international evidence to identify the range of interventions, policies, and measures in long-term care studied during the Covid-19 pandemic and published throughout 2020. Studies were primarily identified from two academic databases (MEDLINE; Web of Science). Findings: We included 137 studies from 22 countries, mostly focusing on the United States, Europe, and Canada. Half of the studies focused on preventing or controlling Covid-19 infections. Other common types of interventions were measures to treat Covid-19 or improve access to general healthcare and studies of possible targets for policies and interventions, such as care home ownership. Only 13 studies covered home-based or community-based care. Limitations: This was a pragmatic review that aimed to map key areas of research in long-term care during the pandemic, rather than a systematic review of all available studies. Implications: During the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic, a substantial body of evidence on interven tions to mitigate impacts of the pandemic in the long-term care sector emerged. However, reflecting the context and speed with which they were carried out, most studies did not apply an analytical lens and instead provided descriptive findings only. There were very few studies on home-based or community-based care settings. As countries assess the lessons that can be learnt from the pandemic and improve the preparedness of their long-term care systems for future pandemics and other shocks, it will be important to consider the importance of facilitating rapid generation of more robust evidence.","PeriodicalId":73807,"journal":{"name":"Journal of long-term care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"9","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What Long-Term Care Interventions and Policy Measures Have Been Studied During the Covid-19 Pandemic? Findings from a Rapid Mapping Review of the Scientific Evidence Published During 2020\",\"authors\":\"William Byrd, M. Salcher-Konrad, Siân Smith, A. Comas-Herrera\",\"doi\":\"10.31389/jltc.97\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"pandemic, long-term care researchers have aimed to generate evidence rapidly to inform the pandemic response. It is unclear which areas were prioritised during this period of rapid evidence generation. Objectives: We aimed to map the international scientific evidence on interventions and policy measures to mitigate the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on people who use and provide long-term care. Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, rapid mapping review of international evidence to identify the range of interventions, policies, and measures in long-term care studied during the Covid-19 pandemic and published throughout 2020. Studies were primarily identified from two academic databases (MEDLINE; Web of Science). Findings: We included 137 studies from 22 countries, mostly focusing on the United States, Europe, and Canada. Half of the studies focused on preventing or controlling Covid-19 infections. Other common types of interventions were measures to treat Covid-19 or improve access to general healthcare and studies of possible targets for policies and interventions, such as care home ownership. Only 13 studies covered home-based or community-based care. Limitations: This was a pragmatic review that aimed to map key areas of research in long-term care during the pandemic, rather than a systematic review of all available studies. Implications: During the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic, a substantial body of evidence on interven tions to mitigate impacts of the pandemic in the long-term care sector emerged. However, reflecting the context and speed with which they were carried out, most studies did not apply an analytical lens and instead provided descriptive findings only. There were very few studies on home-based or community-based care settings. As countries assess the lessons that can be learnt from the pandemic and improve the preparedness of their long-term care systems for future pandemics and other shocks, it will be important to consider the importance of facilitating rapid generation of more robust evidence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":73807,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of long-term care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"9\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of long-term care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.97\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Health Professions\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of long-term care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31389/jltc.97","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 9
摘要
大流行长期护理研究人员的目标是迅速产生证据,为大流行应对提供信息。目前尚不清楚在这一迅速产生证据的时期,哪些领域是优先考虑的。目的:我们旨在绘制有关干预措施和政策措施的国际科学证据,以减轻Covid-19大流行对使用和提供长期护理的人的影响。方法:我们对国际证据进行了务实、快速的制图审查,以确定在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间研究并在2020年全年发表的长期护理干预措施、政策和措施的范围。研究主要从两个学术数据库(MEDLINE;Web of Science)。研究结果:我们纳入了来自22个国家的137项研究,主要集中在美国、欧洲和加拿大。一半的研究侧重于预防或控制Covid-19感染。其他常见类型的干预措施是治疗Covid-19或改善获得一般医疗保健的措施,以及研究政策和干预措施的可能目标,如护理院所有权。只有13项研究涉及以家庭或社区为基础的护理。局限性:这是一项务实的综述,旨在绘制大流行期间长期护理研究的关键领域,而不是对所有现有研究的系统综述。影响:在2019冠状病毒病大流行的第一年,出现了大量关于采取干预措施减轻大流行对长期护理部门影响的证据。然而,由于研究的背景和速度,大多数研究没有运用分析的视角,而只是提供描述性的发现。很少有关于以家庭或社区为基础的护理环境的研究。在各国评估可从大流行中吸取的教训并改进其长期护理系统对未来大流行和其他冲击的准备工作时,必须考虑到促进快速产生更有力证据的重要性。
What Long-Term Care Interventions and Policy Measures Have Been Studied During the Covid-19 Pandemic? Findings from a Rapid Mapping Review of the Scientific Evidence Published During 2020
pandemic, long-term care researchers have aimed to generate evidence rapidly to inform the pandemic response. It is unclear which areas were prioritised during this period of rapid evidence generation. Objectives: We aimed to map the international scientific evidence on interventions and policy measures to mitigate the impacts of the Covid-19 pandemic on people who use and provide long-term care. Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, rapid mapping review of international evidence to identify the range of interventions, policies, and measures in long-term care studied during the Covid-19 pandemic and published throughout 2020. Studies were primarily identified from two academic databases (MEDLINE; Web of Science). Findings: We included 137 studies from 22 countries, mostly focusing on the United States, Europe, and Canada. Half of the studies focused on preventing or controlling Covid-19 infections. Other common types of interventions were measures to treat Covid-19 or improve access to general healthcare and studies of possible targets for policies and interventions, such as care home ownership. Only 13 studies covered home-based or community-based care. Limitations: This was a pragmatic review that aimed to map key areas of research in long-term care during the pandemic, rather than a systematic review of all available studies. Implications: During the first year of the Covid-19 pandemic, a substantial body of evidence on interven tions to mitigate impacts of the pandemic in the long-term care sector emerged. However, reflecting the context and speed with which they were carried out, most studies did not apply an analytical lens and instead provided descriptive findings only. There were very few studies on home-based or community-based care settings. As countries assess the lessons that can be learnt from the pandemic and improve the preparedness of their long-term care systems for future pandemics and other shocks, it will be important to consider the importance of facilitating rapid generation of more robust evidence.