背景:需要护理的老年人数量将超过现有的护理人员,这是当代和全球性的挑战。需要解决方案来帮助老年人保持健康,防止残疾,延迟或避免依赖他人。技术可以使老年人在保持尊严和生活质量的同时变老。关于这一主题的文献综述已成为研究人员的重要工具,从业者,政策制定者,和决策者需要导航和访问广泛的可用证据。由于现有审查的数量众多,种类繁多,有必要审查审查,以概述现有的老龄化技术证据的范围和特征。
目的:本研究旨在通过对综述进行范围审查,并提供证据图,说明研究人员,政策制定者,和从业人员可以用来识别差距和感兴趣的审查。
方法:按照PRISMA-ScR(系统审查的首选报告项目和范围审查的Meta分析扩展)进行审查。文献检索在WebofScience中进行,PubMed,和Scopus使用由术语“老年人”和“老化技术”组成的搜索字符串,\"使用布尔运算符和截断的替代术语,适应每个数据库的规则。
结果:共筛选了5447项研究,全文筛选后纳入344项研究。随着时间的推移,关于这个主题的评论数量急剧增加,文献分散在各种期刊上。用于描述技术的词汇和方法,人口,问题是高度异构的。我们已经确定了三种主要的方法来处理人口问题,审查利用5种战略来概念化技术,以及他们处理过的4种主要问题。这些可以被理解为可以为将来关于该主题的评论提供信息的方法。人口之间的关系,技术,审查中研究的问题在证据图中呈现,其中包括相关的差距。
结论:关于老化技术的证据体系之间的冗余和未利用的协同作用极有可能。这些结果可用于降低这种风险,如果它们被用来为未来关于这一主题的评论的设计提供信息。有必要审查低收入和中等收入国家关于老龄化技术的最新知识,尤其是在非洲。
BACKGROUND: It is a contemporary and global challenge that the increasing number of older people requiring care will surpass the available caregivers. Solutions are needed to help older people maintain their health, prevent disability, and delay or avoid dependency on others. Technology can enable older people to age in place while maintaining their dignity and quality of life. Literature reviews on this topic have become important tools for researchers, practitioners, policy makers, and decision makers who need to navigate and access the extensive available evidence. Due to the large number and diversity of existing reviews, there is a need for a review of reviews that provides an overview of the range and characteristics of the evidence on technology for aging in place.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the characteristics and the range of evidence on technologies for aging in place by conducting a scoping review of reviews and presenting an evidence map that researchers, policy makers, and practitioners may use to identify gaps and reviews of interest.
METHODS: The review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). Literature searches were conducted in Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus using a search string that consisted of the terms \"older people\" and \"technology for ageing in place,\" with alternate terms using Boolean operators and truncation, adapted to the rules for each database.
RESULTS: A total of 5447 studies were screened, with 344 studies included after full-text screening. The number of reviews on this topic has increased dramatically over time, and the literature is scattered across a variety of journals. Vocabularies and approaches used to describe technology, populations, and problems are highly heterogeneous. We have identified 3 principal ways that reviews have dealt with populations, 5 strategies that the reviews draw on to conceptualize technology, and 4 principal types of problems that they have dealt with. These may be understood as methods that can inform future reviews on this topic. The relationships among populations, technologies, and problems studied in the reviews are presented in an evidence map that includes pertinent gaps.
CONCLUSIONS: Redundancies and unexploited synergies between bodies of evidence on technology for aging in place are highly likely. These results can be used to decrease this risk if they are used to inform the design of future reviews on this topic. There is a need for an examination of the current state of the art in knowledge on technology for aging in place in low- and middle-income countries, especially in Africa.