Older adults and family caregivers’ experience of digital health technology in frailty care: A systematic review and meta-ethnography protocol

Andrew Darley; Rachael Dix; Elena Rocher; Diarmuid Stokes; Áine Carroll

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13549.1

Home Browse Older adults and family caregivers’ experience of digital health technology...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Study Protocol

Older adults and family caregivers’ experience of digital health technology in frailty care: A systematic review and meta-ethnography protocol

[version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]

Andrew Darley ¹, Rachael Dix², Elena Rocher², Diarmuid Stokes³, Áine Carroll^1,4

Andrew Darley ¹, Rachael Dix², [...] Elena Rocher², Diarmuid Stokes³, Áine Carroll^1,4

PUBLISHED 13 May 2022

Author details Author details

¹ School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
² Las Naves, Valencia, Spain
³ Health Sciences Library, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
⁴ The National Rehabilitation Hospital (NRH), Dublin, Ireland

Andrew Darley
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Rachael Dix
Roles: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Project Administration, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Elena Rocher
Roles: Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision

Diarmuid Stokes
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Resources

Áine Carroll
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

This article is included in the Ageing Populations collection.

Abstract

Background: Digital health technology has been identified as a valuable tool to support older adults with frailty needs in their home setting. Despite the numerous technologies and evaluations of these innovations, a synthesis of the older person and family caregivers’ experience using technology for support self-management has not been conducted to date.
Methods and analysis: A systematic review and meta-ethnography will be conducted in accordance with the PRISMA and eMERGe reporting guidelines. Four peer-reviewed empirical evidence databases will be searched (Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO) using a defined search strategy. Studies containing qualitative data on the experiences of older people or family caregivers of using digital health technology to support frailty care will be included. Covidence software will be used to screen studies and extract data. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative research will be used by two independent reviewers to appraise all included papers. A meta-ethnography will be undertaken in accordance with the seven-phase method described by Noblit and Hare: (1) Getting started, (2) Deciding what is relevant to the initial interest, (3) Reading the studies, (4) Determining how the studies are related, (5) Translating the studies into one another, (6) Synthesizing translations and (7) Expressing the synthesis.
Discussion: To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first systematic review to integrate and synthesize the findings of qualitative studies of older citizens’ experience of digital health technology. The findings of this meta-ethnography will endeavour to inform future research, policy and clinical practice. In particular, the results will help to inform the design of future digital health technology to meet the needs of older adults.
PROSPERO registration number: Submitted 05/04/2022 and currently under review.

Keywords

digital health, eHealth, ageing, frailty, meta-ethnography

Corresponding author: Andrew Darley

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Copyright: © 2022 Darley A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Darley A, Dix R, Rocher E et al. Older adults and family caregivers’ experience of digital health technology in frailty care: A systematic review and meta-ethnography protocol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations]. HRB Open Res 2022, 5:38 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13549.1) First published: 13 May 2022, 5:38 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13549.1) Latest published: 18 Aug 2022, 5:38 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13549.2)

Introduction

Healthy and active ageing have become a global health priority as life expectancy is increasingly improving¹. It is estimated that by 2050, the median age of several European Union (EU) countries will have risen by up by eight years². However, this increase in an individual’s lifespan does not infer better quality of life. With longer lifespans, people are at a higher risk of experiencing a chronic health condition which, in turn, places greater demands on the management of health and social care services³. Coupled with the increasing lifespans of our population are the decreasing fertility rates, which in turn have led to rising old-age dependency ratios across the EU. It is estimated that by 2050, the average of this ratio will be 50%, meaning that there will be less than two people of working age for every person over the age of 65², creating an unsustainable social security system that will not be sufficient to support the care of older people.

European government expenditures are increasingly burdened to cover the costs of chronic health conditions such as frailty, heart disease, cancer, diabetes, stroke, and arthritis⁴. It has been reported that these conditions account for 70–80% of public health expenditure in the EU, which amounts to an estimated €700 billion⁵. In the EU in 2018, approximately 37% of adults over the age of 65 were reported to have two or more chronic conditions⁶. The presence of chronic health conditions may limit one's capacity to carry out the activities of daily living (ADL), such as personal hygiene or grooming, dressing, toileting, transferring or ambulating, and eating, or instrumental activities of daily living (IADL), such as transportation and shopping, managing finances, shopping and meal preparation, house-cleaning and home maintenance, managing communication with others, medication management⁷. The inability to perform ADLs and IADLs implies further pressure on government expenditure, as long-term care assistance may be required⁸. In addition to government spending, out-of-pocket payments for individuals with chronic health conditions are higher due to increased health-care use, lower earnings due to disability, early retirement, and dependence on social security systems^9–11.

The burden of care on family or informal caregivers is an additional factor to consider in relation to chronic conditions, the predominant profile being female and between the ages of 45 and 64 years¹², and accounts for 75% of the care provided to older dependent people¹³. Informal caregiving may create physical and psychological strain over extended periods of time and has the capacity to create secondary stress across multiple life domains such as work and family relationships¹⁴; these caregivers have also been referred to as ‘invisible second patients’ when caring for older adults¹⁵.

A common health condition amongst older people, often experienced with other chronic comorbidities, is frailty. Frailty is a distinct health condition related to the ageing process whereby multiple physiological systems gradually lose their intrinsic capacity which can result in sudden health status changes due to stress or an event such as a fall or an infection¹⁶. The prevalence of frailty increases with age, ranging between 4 and 59% in populations of home-dwelling older people and is higher in women than in men¹⁷. People living with frailty are known to have more falls, more disabilities, use more medications and require more access to long-term healthcare services than individuals without the condition¹⁸. Frailty is not inevitable and can be avoided, delayed, and reversed with timely and appropriate interventions such as self-management and care planning¹⁹. It has been estimated that intervening against frailty would reduce the rates of dependency in older people by up to 40–50%. This reduction in dependency would imply an improvement in the quality of life of millions of European citizens and would significantly decrease European public spending²⁰. Therefore, older adults must be encouraged to engage in proactive health behaviours that prevent or support individuals in maintaining their intrinsic capacity as they age.

Digital health has been identified as a valuable method in supporting older adults’ self-management and well-being in their home setting^21,22. As a concept, no singular definition of digital health exists. In their recently published Global Strategy for Digital Health 2020–2025, The World Health Organisation (WHO)²³ referred to it as “the field of knowledge and practice associated with the development and use of digital technologies to improve health”, which will be utilised in the current protocol. Christophorou and colleagues²⁴ identified several contexts in which digital health can promote active and healthy aging such as prolonging time in the working environment, overcoming social isolation and loneliness, accessing public and private services, and stimulating independence. Digital health technology enables healthcare providers to engage, motivate and promote healthy lifestyle behaviours amongst older adults, and includes but is not limited to, smartphone/tablet applications, websites, connected devices, video consultations and wearable tracking devices²⁵. A substantial light was shone on digital technology and its value in supporting older people during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, when many older adults were required to stay in their homes, restricting their social contacts and preventing them from visiting their usual care centres, due to being considered a high-risk population²⁶.

While available empirical reviews detail several types of digital health interventions for older people with various conditions^27–34, there is a lack of uniformity between the condition included, intervention type and methods for evaluation in terms of their usability, acceptability and efficacy³⁵. More specifically, digital health interventions focusing on frailty care amongst older adults are scarce and rarely assess their effectiveness. This is compounded by the lack of agreement regarding the condition of what ‘frailty’ refers to. Many of the studies to date have failed to scientifically evaluate the benefits of digital health interventions in terms of frailty reversal and quality of life³⁵. Indeed, authors of a systematic review on technology for ageing in place reported a lack of outcome measurements in the studies included in their analysis³⁶. One scoping review on digital health interventions among people living with frailty reported validated assessment outcomes in only 45% of the studies included³⁵. In a systematic review performed by Kampmeijer et al.²⁵, the authors outlined the evidence on the facilitating factors and barriers to the use of digital health tools for health promotion and primary prevention among older adults. However, evidence on the effectiveness of the tools was not discussed in the review.

While it is evident that there has been increasing interest in the development and assessment of technologies for older people with frailty, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, there are currently no evidence synthesis regarding which digital health interventions better support older citizens living with frailty in their home setting. Therefore, it is difficult to determine if digital health can effectively promote independent living and/or ageing in place for older people with frailty, and if so, which types of digital health interventions are more effective. Moreover, there has been no effort to synthesise family caregivers’ experience of digital health interventions for frailty, whether they directly used the technology or supported a relative who did.

In a recent scoping review by Linn and colleagues³⁵ the main objective was to provide a broad overview of digital health interventions used for people living with frailty, to identify gaps in the literature, and to describe the robustness of the digital approaches. The authors of this review highlighted the heterogeneity among frailty assessments, study designs and evaluations of digital health interventions within the included studies, making it difficult to draw conclusions on their effectiveness. Furthermore, it was found that few studies evaluated efficacy, usability or feasibility and that frailty assessment of their sample was commonly not reported in over a third of the included studies³⁵. In addition, for the studies that did assess and report their sample’s frailty levels, lack of uniformity existed regarding the frailty assessment employed and frailty scores of participants. It should also be considered that assessment of the caregivers’ experience with the digital health intervention was not discussed, highlighting another area that requires further investigation. Linn and colleagues³⁵ concluded their review with a call for “standardized approaches to assess frailty, well-structured randomized controlled trials, and proper evaluation and report”.

Taking the conclusions of Linn and colleagues’³⁵ review into consideration, it is evident that there is a need for a standardized approach to investigating the area of digital health interventions in frailty care. Acknowledging that reviews in the area suggest that the effectiveness of such interventions remains encouraging yet ambiguous, it is important to broaden the scope of the evaluation by examining the experiences of older people and family caregivers using technology, rather than simply measuring their effectiveness rates or health outcome changes. While usability and efficacy are central to evaluation of digital health to ensure they achieve their intended purpose, it may also prove insightful to understand how older people and their family caregivers responded to using such technology and what it personally meant for them in their daily lives. In order to effectively contribute to the current body of knowledge, the authors of the original review were consulted in the development of the current protocol. It was determined that an in-depth qualitative synthesis was necessary regarding the evidence to date, which is the approach set forth in the current protocol.

Research aims

The aims of the current protocol are (a) to systematically search empirical qualitative literature to identify studies exploring the experiences of older adults and family caregivers using digital health to support the management of frailty in the home setting, and (b) to perform a meta-ethnography to synthesise the included studies with the intention of describing the phenomenon and identifying new insights. The following research questions were established, based on the SPIDER tool³⁷, which will guide the review and the qualitative synthesis of identified literature:

1. What are older adults and their family caregivers’ experiences of digital health technology to support frailty care in the home setting?
2. What facilitators and barriers exist to using digital health technology for frailty care in the home setting amongst older adults and their family caregivers?

Protocol

The systematic review protocol is written in accordance with The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement which is publicly available³⁸. Qualitative studies identified in the review will be subject to a meta-ethnographic study, which is an inductive, highly interpretive approach³⁹. A meta-ethnographic approach has been chosen as the method of qualitative evidence synthesis for this review because it “provides the opportunity for us to carefully consider the relationship between studies, understand the issues and to comprehend the reality of everyday life”³⁹. Meta-ethnography was chosen for its ability to explore existing qualitative data and formulate comprehensive interpretations or theoretical frameworks using existing evidence. Meta-ethnography has been previously used in healthcare settings to examine care transitions of older people and their caregivers⁴⁰, physical activity in older age⁴¹and digital technology⁴².

Meta-ethnography will be used to synthesize and evaluate the results of the included studies in accordance with Noblit and Hare’s³⁹ seven stages: (1) Getting started, (2) Deciding what is relevant to the initial interest, (3) Reading the studies, (4) Determining how the studies are related, (5) Translating the studies into one another, (6) Synthesizing translations and (7) Expressing the synthesis. These steps will be explained in further detail below in how they relate to the current protocol. The review will be reported in line with the eMERGe guidance for reporting meta-ethnography⁴³. Ethical approval is not required for the synthesis of published peer-reviewed studies and their related data.

Phase 1: Selecting meta-ethnography and getting started

Phase one of a meta-ethnography involves reporting the rationale and the context for the study. To the best of our knowledge, no meta-ethnography exists to date which synthesises the evidence on the experiences of older adults with frailty using digital health technology in their home setting. Following the authors’ discovery of the comprehensive scoping review by Linn and colleagues³⁵, a gap in the knowledge existed regarding a deeper and focused examination of qualitative evidence on this topic. A key aim of the review and rationale for utilising meta-ethnography is to provide a conceptual understanding of how older adults and their family caregivers experience and engage with digital health technology within the context of frailty care.

Phase 2: Deciding what is relevant to research aim

Search strategy. The Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, and Research type (SPIDER) tool³⁷ was used to structure the search terms. A search strategy (Table 1) was developed based on the research questions, with key terms from this strategy tested in a scoping search of the literature. Relevant keywords and phrases will be used in each database. Keywords and phrases include older adults, family caregivers, digital health technology and experiences. The search strategy was reviewed by a university research librarian for comprehensiveness. The search strategy will be adapted and conducted within four empirical databases: Medline (Ovid), CINAHL, EMBASE and PsycINFO. Search results will be limited to articles written in English dated from 2010 to the present day. Reference lists of relevant articles will also be manually searched by the author team to identify further studies.

Study selection. The SPIDER search strategy tool³⁷ also informed the eligibility criteria to identify the relevant literature. Table 2 outlines each aspect of the SPIDER tool (sample, phenomenon of interest, design, evaluation, and Research Type) and its related inclusion/exclusion criteria. Included studies will describe a sample of older adults (65+) with a diagnosis of mild or moderate frailty and their family or informal caregivers. Given the lack of definition internationally regarding the medical condition of frailty, where adults do not have a formal diagnosis but identify as having frailty needs will still be included in the screening process.

Table 1. Search terms for systematic review.

	Search terms
Sample	“older pe” OR “older adult” OR “older citizen” OR “senior” OR elder OR “ageing population” OR “ageing adult” OR “old age” OR “older age” OR “geriatric” OR “older individual” OR elder OR “aged” AND frail* OR “challenges in the activities of daily living” OR ADLs OR pre-frail AND Family care* OR caregiver* OR family OR informal care* OR carer* OR spouse* OR partner OR friend* OR relative* OR guardian* OR dyad*
Phenomenon of interest	“digital health” OR “digital intervention” eHealth OR e-Health OR telemedicine OR “tele-medicine” OR telecare OR tele-care OR “electronic health” OR “internet health” OR telehealth OR tele-health OR “mobile health” OR “mHealth” OR m-Health OR “mobile app” OR “tablet app” OR “Medicine 2.0" OR teleconsultation*
Design	Interview* OR “focus group” OR “co-design” OR “participatory research”
Evaluation	experience OR patient-perspective* OR accept* OR feasibility OR usability OR expectation OR understanding OR comprehension OR perception* OR attitude*
Research type	qualitative OR “mixed method*”

Table 2. Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, and Research type tool (SPIDER) table of study inclusion and exclusion criteria.

	Inclusion	Exclusion
Sample	• Older citizens, aged ≥65+ living with frailty in their home setting • Family caregivers to older citizens (≥65+) living with frailty in the home setting	• Individuals under the age of 65 with frailty • Older people with significant cognitive impairment • People with multiple conditions where frailty is not the primary focus • People living in institutional settings (e.g., hospital or nursing home, age-friendly supported housing)
Phenomenon of interest	• Experience of digital health in their home setting	• Experience of digital health in care setting • Experience of digital health where frailty is not the main condition • Studies on perception or attitudes with no direct experience reported • Digital health design studies regarding how they could be supported
Design	• Qualitative or mixed-method studies reporting primary qualitative data collected using qualitative methods (through direct observation; focus groups or interviews)	• Studies that report quantitative data only including questionnaire studies with open- ended free text questions
Evaluation	• Qualitative analysis of lived experience of using digital health technology including feasibility, acceptability, facilitators, barriers	• Studies that evaluate using quantitative methods only • Studies that do not explicitly state the method of analysis
Research type	• Peer-reviewed journal articles using qualitative design or including a qualitative component that are distinguished from other methods used • Full text available in English language	• Reviews; protocols; theoretical work; editorials; opinion pieces and grey literature • Non-English language

When the search has been conducted in each database, the identified articles will be imported into the bibliographic reference manager, Mendeley, to remove any duplicates before initial screening by reviewers. The citations will then be exported to the screening and data extraction software tool Covidence, to screen all articles using the eligibility criteria. Each article will be required to be approved by two independent reviewers (AD, RD) before either being included or excluded in the review. A pilot testing of articles (n=10) using the Covidence software package and inclusion and exclusion criteria will be undertaken by the authors to ensure consistency of the methodology adopted in the selection process⁴⁴. Full-text screening will then be carried out on all articles that meet the inclusion criteria during the initial screening round by two independent reviewers (AD, RD). In the instance of disagreement regarding an article’s inclusion, a third reviewer (AC) will additionally independently assess the relevance of the article and decide the final outcome. A PRISMA flow diagram will be created once all screening has been completed to ensure transparency of the process.

Quality appraisal. Despite the lack of consensus regarding quality appraisal for qualitative research, the authors will include this step in the evidence identification for the purpose of critically evaluating the evidence and the rigor and transparency. The methodological quality of the included studies will be appraised using the ten-item Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative research. The CASP tool is widely used in qualitative research and has been recommended for use in health research. Two evaluators (AD, RD) will independently assess the quality of each study with disagreement resolved through consensus and discussion with a third evaluator (ER), if necessary. No studies will be excluded based on quality; however, the appraisal will be used to highlight methodological limitations in their interpretation of the study findings, particularly when developing their own synthesis.

Phase 3: Reading the studies

This stage of the meta-ethnography will involve repeated careful reading and immersion in the identified studies to obtain familiarity, and to determine the key concepts and author interpretations relevant to the study aims. Following repeated close reading of the identified articles, the raw data for the meta-ethnographic synthesis will be extracted into a collaborative data extraction form in a Microsoft Word document between the study authors. First-order constructs (i.e., participant quotations) and second-order constructs (i.e., author metaphorical themes or concepts) will be extracted from each article at this point⁴⁵. A separate data extraction form will also be created⁴⁶ to describe study contextual information, such as study setting, participants, research design and aim, frailty measured and description of the digital health technology. Throughout this phase, two reviewers will initially complete coding and data extraction independently, before working together to discuss discrepancies in their analysis and identify emerging themes.

Phase 4: Determining how the studies are related

This phase will involve determining the relationships between the key concepts from the range of papers. In this context, a ‘concept’ refers to a “meaningful idea that develops by comparing particular instances” where they must explain and not just describe the data⁴³. In order to understand the relationship between concepts amongst the various studies, the authors will create a list of themes to conduct a close comparison and assess the common and recurring concepts between studies. From this list, the themes from the studies will be clustered into relevant categories, in which common concepts will be grouped according to similar underlying metaphors⁴⁶. These categories will be labelled using terms that encompass the key concepts they contain. This phase will be iterative whereby revisions may be conducted based on author discussions and the source text.

Phase 5: Translating the studies into one another

This phase involves a constant comparison of the studies to examine the key concepts within. The translations will be conducted in chronological order⁴⁷. Each concept from each paper will be compared with all other articles in turn to reciprocally assess the presence or absence of the concept, with the aim of organising the concepts in further conceptual categories⁴⁸. Team discussions regarding the key concepts and their meanings will be held to ensure rigor and challenge interpretations of the data. The two lead authors (AD, RD) will maintain two independent journals during this phase to ensure the transparency of analysis, and that they are aware of their own theoretical position⁴⁹.

Phase 6: Synthesizing the translations

During this phase, third-order constructs (i.e., the reviewer’s higher-order interpretations of first- and second-order constructs) will be established with the intention of “making the whole into something more than the parts alone imply”⁵⁰. The authors will view the studies as a whole, rather than individual studies, to garner a conceptual framework^45,48 which will explain the phenomenon of interest. This phase will be conducted in two steps. In the first step, a reciprocal and refutational synthesis will be performed, in which the authors will determine the similarities and dissimilarities between the studies. This step will help inform whether the synthesis will focus their cohesion (reciprocal translation synthesis), contradictions (refutational synthesis) or whether both are necessary⁴⁶. A line of argument synthesis will then be created from third-order constructs by the lead authors independently (AD, RD) through constant comparison to create higher-order interpretations using the identified internal concepts within the identified studies. Once this step is carried out independently, the two lead authors will merge their findings to produce the final line of argument synthesis and will be reviewed by the wider team.

Phase 7: Expressing the synthesis

The authors will follow the eMERGE reporting guidelines⁴³ when writing up the synthesis for dissemination. Meta-ethnographic reporting will focus on the (i) summary of findings (ii) strengths, limitations and reflexivity and (iii) recommendations and conclusions⁴³. Findings from the meta-ethnography will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at relevant international conferences and made available to the general public and patients, in a suitable format. When creating material for the general public, including older people, we will work with an older person advocacy organisation to ensure that the media are acceptable and accessible to the population and disseminated using the most effective and engaging channels.

Conclusions

A cornerstone in the management and treatment of frailty is health behavioural change and lifestyle in the home setting, such as diet and exercise, to maintain one’s intrinsic capacity. As such, digital health technology has been valued for its potential to promote independent and autonomous living in older people. To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first systematic review to integrate and synthesize the findings of qualitative studies of older adults with frailty and their experience of digital health. This systematic review and meta-ethnography protocol describes the method in which to address vital gap in the existing literature on lived experiences of older adults using digital health technology. We believe that a focus on how older adults have experienced self-management technology in their home setting is essential to understanding how to expand and make progression in the field. While more research is being invested in deciding how to collaborate and support this population, it is important to take stock of the evidence to date in what is known about their lived experience to help shape what it is to come. Without this understanding, researchers and technology inventors may be destined to repeat previous approaches that were not acceptable or effective amongst this population. While the results of the review may not be generalisable to all older adults, we believe it is important to focus on the specific health condition of frailty to understand the nuances and needs of those who experience it. The findings of this review are intended to inform future research and policy, digital technology design and clinical practice.

Data availability

Underlying data

No data are associated with this article.

Reporting guidelines

Figshare: PRISMA-P Checklist for “Older adults and family caregivers’ experience of digital health technology in frailty care: A systematic review and meta-ethnography protocol”, https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19657053.v1³⁸

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the ValueCare Consortium members and the Fundación para la Investigación del Hospital Clínico de la Comunidad Valenciana INCLIVA. This protocol was developed by team members within the Horizon2020 project, ValueCare. However, no funding from the project was used to publish the current work.

Faculty Opinions recommended

References

1. World Health Organization: Global strategy and action plan on ageing and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Reference Source
2. Eurostat: Ageing Europe: Looking at the lives of older people in Europe. Luxembourg. Publications Office of the European Union; 2020. Reference Source
3. World Health Organization: Preventing chronic diseases: a vital investment. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018.
4. Goryakin Y, Thiébaut SP, Cortaredona S, et al.: Assessing the future medical cost burden for the European health systems under alternative exposure-to-risks scenarios. PLoS One. 2020; 15(9): e0238565. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
5. European Commission: Towards better prevention and management of chronic disease. Brussels: European Commission, Public Health; 2016. Reference Source
6. OECD: Preventing ageing unequally. Paris: OECI iLibrary; 2017. Publisher Full Text
7. Edemekong PF, Bomgaars DL, Sukumaran S, et al.: Activities of Daily Living. [Updated 2022 Feb 17]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022. Reference Source
8. Salinas-Rodríguez A, Manrique-Espinoza B, Torres Mussot I, et al.: Out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures in dependent older adults: results from an economic evaluation study in Mexico. Front Public Health. 2020; 8: 329. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
9. Abegunde DO, Stanciole AE: The economic impact of chronic diseases: how do households respond to shocks? Evidence from Russia. Soc Sci Med. 2008; 66(11): 2296–307. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
10. Jeon YH, Essue B, Jan S, et al.: Economic hardship associated with managing chronic illness: a qualitative inquiry. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009; 9: 182. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
11. Krůtilová VK, Bahnsen L, De Graeve D: The out-of-pocket burden of chronic diseases: the cases of Belgian, Czech and German older adults. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21(1): 239. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
12. Escobar Alonso F. Prieto Paredes F, Gil Soler M, et al.: Estrés por sobrecarga del cuidador de personas dependientes. Revista Médica. 2019. Reference Source
13. Tabueña Lafarga M. Muñoz Iranzo J, Fabà Ribera J: La sensibilización y la prevención de los malos tratos a las personas mayores. Barcelona: Obra Social La Caixa. 2016. Reference Source
14. Vitaliano PP, Zhang J, Scanlan JM: Is caregiving hazardous to one's physical health? A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2003; 129(6): 946–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
15. Hallarman L: The Invisible Second Patient: Supporting the Family Caregiver. Boston: Harvard University. National Center for Equitable Care for Elders; 2021. Reference Source
16. Clegg A, Young J, Iliffe S, et al.: Frailty in elder people. Lancet. 2013; 381: 752–62. Publisher Full Text
17. Rohrmann S: Epidemiology of frailty in older people. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2020; 1261: 21–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
18. Kojima G, Liljas AEM, Iliffe S: Frailty syndrome: implications and challenges for health care policy. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2019; 12: 23–30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
19. Tarazona-Santabalbina FJ, Gómez-Cabrera MC, Pérez-Ros P, et al.: A Multicomponent Exercise Intervention that Reverses Frailty and Improves Cognition, Emotion, and Social Networking in the Community-Dwelling Frail Elderly: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2016; 17(5): 426–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
20. Peña-Longobardo LM, Oliva-Moreno J, Zozaya N, et al.: Economic evaluation of a multimodal intervention in pre-frail and frail older people with diabetes mellitus: the MID-FRAIL project. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2021; 21(1): 111–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
21. Maeder A: Digital Technology Trends Supporting Assisted Independent Living of Ageing Population. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2020; 270: 577–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
22. Tannou T, Lihoreau T, Gagnon-Roy M, et al.: Effectiveness of smart living environments to support older adults to age in place in their community: an umbrella review protocol. BMJ Open. 2022; 12(1): e054235. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
23. World Health Organization: Using e-health and information technology to improve health. Geneva: World Health Organization. Reference Source
24. Christophorou C, Kleanthous S, Georgiadis D, et al.: ICT services for active ageing and independent living: identification and assessment. Healthc Technol Lett. 2016; 3(3): 159–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
25. Kampmeijer R, Pavlova M, Tambor M, et al.: The use of e-health and m-health tools in health promotion and primary prevention among older adults: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016; 16(Suppl 5): 290. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
26. Haase KR, Cosco T, Kervin L, et al.: Older adults' experiences with using technology for socialization during the COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-sectional survey study. JMIR Aging. 2021; 4(2): e28010. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
27. Lin JT, Lane JM: Falls in the elderly population. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2005; 16(1): 109–28. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
28. Botsis T, Hartvigsen G: Current status and future perspectives in telecare for elderly people suffering from chronic diseases. J Telemed Telecare. 2008; 14(4): 195–203. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
29. Ramos-Ríos R, Mateos R, Lojo D, et al.: Telepsychogeriatrics: a new horizon in the care of mental health problems in the elderly. Int Psychogeriatr. 2012; 24(11): 1708–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
30. Coker E, Ploeg J, Kaasalainen S, et al.: A concept analysis of oral hygiene care in dependent older adults. J Adv Nurs. 2013; 69(10): 2360–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
31. Liu L, Stroulia E, Nikolaidis I, et al.: Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: A systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2016; 91: 44–59. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
32. Worster B, Swartz K: Telemedicine and palliative care: An increasing role in supportive oncology. Curr Oncol Rep. 2017; 19(6): 37. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
33. Malkina A, Tuot DS: Role of telehealth in renal replacement therapy education. Semin Dial. 2018; 31(2): 129–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
34. Buyl R, Beogo I, Fobelets M, et al.: e-Health interventions for healthy aging: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2020; 9(1): 128. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
35. Linn N, Goetzinger C, Regnaux JP, et al.: Digital health interventions among people living with frailty: a scoping review. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021; 22(9): 1802–12.e21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
36. Sumner J, Chong LS, Bundele A, et al.: Co-Designing Technology for Aging in Place: A Systematic Review. Gerontologist. 2021; 61(7): e395–e409. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
37. Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A: Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012; 22(10): 1435–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
38. Darley A, Dix R, Rocher E, et al.: PRISMA-P-checklist Systematic Review Protocol. Figshare. Figure. 2022. http://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19657053
39. Noblit GW, Hare HD: Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Thousand Oaks CA; Sage, 1988. Reference Source
40. Saragosa M, Jeffs L, Okrainec K, et al.: Using meta-ethnography to understand the care transition experience of people with dementia and their caregivers. Dementia (London). 2022; 21(1): 153–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
41. Morgan GS, Willmott M, Ben-Shlomo Y, et al.: A life fulfilled: positively influencing physical activity in older adults - a systematic review and meta-ethnography. BMC Public Health. 2019; 19(1): 362. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
42. Carter DD, Robinson K, Forbes J, et al.: Experiences of mobile health in promoting physical activity: A qualitative systematic review and meta-ethnography. PLoS One. 2018; 13(12): e0208759. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
43. France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N, et al.: Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019; 19(1: 25. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
44. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al.: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020; 18(10): 2119–26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
45. Cahill M, Robinson K, Pettigrew J, et al.: Qualitative synthesis: a guide to conducting a meta-ethnography. Br J Occup Ther. 2018; 81(3): 129–37. Publisher Full Text
46. Sattar R, Lawton R, Panagioti M, et al.: Meta-ethnography in healthcare research: a guide to using a meta-ethnographic approach for literature synthesis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21(1): 50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
47. Campbell R, Pound P, Morgan M, et al.: Evaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technol Assess. 2011; 15(43): 1–164. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text
48. Toye F, Seers K, Allcock N, et al.: 'Trying to pin down jelly' - exploring intuitive processes in quality assessment for meta-ethnography. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13: 46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text
49. Doyle LH: Synthesis through meta-ethnography: paradoxes, enhancements, and possibilities. Qual Res. 2003; 3(3): 321–44. Publisher Full Text
50. Noblit G, Hare R: A meta-ethnographic approach and the Freeman refutation of Mead. In: Atkinson P, Delamont S (Eds.). SAGE Qualitative Research Methods. London: Sage Publishing, 2010; 1: 337–54.

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 13 May 2022

Author details Author details

Elena Rocher
Roles: Conceptualization, Resources, Supervision

Diarmuid Stokes
Roles: Investigation, Methodology, Resources

Áine Carroll
Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Resources, Software, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 18 Aug 2022, 5:38

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13549.2

version 1

Published: 13 May 2022, 5:38

https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13549.1

© 2022 Darley A et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

VIEWS

459

downloads

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Darley A, Dix R, Rocher E et al. Older adults and family caregivers’ experience of digital health technology in frailty care: A systematic review and meta-ethnography protocol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 1 approved with reservations] HRB Open Res 2022, 5:38 (https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13549.1)

NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 13 May 2022

Views

Reviewer Report 06 Jun 2022

Gloria A Aguayo, Department of Precision Health, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg

Approved

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14791.r32114

This document is a protocol of a systematic review and meta-ethnography about the experiences of older adults with digital health technology. The protocol is well-written. The research question is relevant for the older population with frailty but not only for this population. The introduction gives a comprehensive background for the study citing the most important literature in the field. It has an adequate methodology with details describing a standardised stud selection using the SPIDER search strategy tool and the seven steps for meta-ethnography and its standardised guideline (eMERGe).

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Healthy ageing, frailty, diabetes.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

CITE

Report a concern

Respond or Comment

Views

Reviewer Report 01 Jun 2022

Áine Teahan, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.21956/hrbopenres.14791.r32112

Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. This is a well-written protocol for a systematic review and meta-ethnography for older people with frailty and family carers. I look forward to reading future findings.

I have made some suggestions and raised some points for clarification below.

Introduction:
The figure 4-59% prevalence of frailty in older people is quite a big range. It would be helpful if the authors could reference the weighted prevalence of 10.7% reported as well (Collard et al., 2012).¹ Also the weighted prevalence of pre-frailty (41.6%) would provide additional background on the importance of research in this area.

If available, it would be useful if the authors could reference some examples of meta-ethnographic approaches applied to digital health and older people with other health conditions. This would provide some concrete examples of the benefits of this methodology in digital health.

Research Aims:
I am unclear on the first aim- does this systematic review aim to explore the experiences of older adults and family carers (i.e. care dyads)? Or does the SR aim to explore the experiences of older adults and/or family carers?

If the latter, the sample search terms in Table 1 will need slight modification. As they’re currently designed this search strategy require that both older people with frailty and family carer key words need to be present. This could miss literature focusing on older people but not family carers and vice versa.

Methods:
Depending on the authors’ response to my research aims query- Table 1 may require an edit.

For replicability, it would be useful if the authors’ would specify within what limits each string will search i.e. title, abstract, full-text etc- Table 1.

The authors identified four peer-reviewed databases- is peer review an inclusion/exclusion criteria for the review? Will the hand-searched citations need to be peer reviewed too?

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

References

1. Collard RM, Boter H, Schoevers RA, Oude Voshaar RC: Prevalence of frailty in community-dwelling older persons: a systematic review.J Am Geriatr Soc. 2012; 60 (8): 1487-92 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: I am currently working on a research project exploring digital health for older people with multi-morbidity. My previous research has focused on psychosocial support for family carers of people with dementia. I am broadly familiar with the field of frailty. I have also conducted systematic reviews in the past.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 18 Aug 2022

Andrew Darley, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

18 Aug 2022

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We are grateful for the time and effort committed by you in evaluating our manuscript. Based on your feedback, we have amended the paper and provided responses ... Continue reading Dear Reviewers,

We are grateful for the time and effort committed by you in evaluating our manuscript. Based on your feedback, we have amended the paper and provided responses to each comment below. We believe we have appropriately addressed your suggestions and the protocol is stronger as a result.

Best Wishes,
The Author Team

Reviewer Comment

Introduction: The figure 4-59% prevalence of frailty in older people is quite a big range. It would be helpful if the authors could reference the weighted prevalence of 10.7% reported as well (Collard et al., 2012).¹ Also the weighted prevalence of pre-frailty (41.6%) would provide additional background on the importance of research in this area.

Author Response
Thank you for this suggestion and statistics. We have reworded this statement to include the weighted prevalence for frailty and pre-frailty.

If available, it would be useful if the authors could reference some examples of meta-ethnographic approaches applied to digital health and older people with other health conditions. This would provide some concrete examples of the benefits of this methodology in digital health.

Author Response
We have identified two studies that adopted meta-ethnography to study older adults’ experience of digital health. We were unable to identify studies specific to frailty care. This has been included under ‘Protocol’ where the method is explained and refers to other healthcare settings in which it has been applied.

Research Aims:
I am unclear on the first aim- does this systematic review aim to explore the experiences of older adults and family carers (i.e. care dyads)? Or does the SR aim to explore the experiences of older adults and/or family carers?

If the latter, the sample search terms in Table 1 will need slight modification. As they’re currently designed this search strategy require that both older people with frailty and family carer key words need to be present. This could miss literature focusing on older people but not family carers and vice versa.

Author Response
The review will focus on exploring experiences of older adults and/or family carers. We have amended the search strategy to clarify and reflect the target sample

Methods: Depending on the authors’ response to my research aims query- Table 1 may require an edit.

Author Response
This has been edited based on previous comment.

For replicability, it would be useful if the authors’ would specify within what limits each string will search i.e. title, abstract, full-text etc- Table 1.

Author Response
The search strategy in each database will be limited to Title and Abstract. We have included a statement this specification under ‘Search Strategy’.

The authors identified four peer-reviewed databases- is peer review an inclusion/exclusion criteria for the review? Will the hand-searched citations need to be peer reviewed too?

Author Response
The review will focus on evidence that has been peer reviewed and is a criteria to be included. We will be searching CINAHL which contains both peer-review and grey literature so would only include the peer-reviewed material. We have included a sentence under ‘Search Strategy’ to explicitly state this.
Dear Reviewers,

We are grateful for the time and effort committed by you in evaluating our manuscript. Based on your feedback, we have amended the paper and provided responses to each comment below. We believe we have appropriately addressed your suggestions and the protocol is stronger as a result.

Best Wishes,
The Author Team

Reviewer Comment

Introduction: The figure 4-59% prevalence of frailty in older people is quite a big range. It would be helpful if the authors could reference the weighted prevalence of 10.7% reported as well (Collard et al., 2012).¹ Also the weighted prevalence of pre-frailty (41.6%) would provide additional background on the importance of research in this area.

Author Response
Thank you for this suggestion and statistics. We have reworded this statement to include the weighted prevalence for frailty and pre-frailty.

If available, it would be useful if the authors could reference some examples of meta-ethnographic approaches applied to digital health and older people with other health conditions. This would provide some concrete examples of the benefits of this methodology in digital health.

Author Response
We have identified two studies that adopted meta-ethnography to study older adults’ experience of digital health. We were unable to identify studies specific to frailty care. This has been included under ‘Protocol’ where the method is explained and refers to other healthcare settings in which it has been applied.

Research Aims:
I am unclear on the first aim- does this systematic review aim to explore the experiences of older adults and family carers (i.e. care dyads)? Or does the SR aim to explore the experiences of older adults and/or family carers?

If the latter, the sample search terms in Table 1 will need slight modification. As they’re currently designed this search strategy require that both older people with frailty and family carer key words need to be present. This could miss literature focusing on older people but not family carers and vice versa.

Author Response
The review will focus on exploring experiences of older adults and/or family carers. We have amended the search strategy to clarify and reflect the target sample

Methods: Depending on the authors’ response to my research aims query- Table 1 may require an edit.

Author Response
This has been edited based on previous comment.

For replicability, it would be useful if the authors’ would specify within what limits each string will search i.e. title, abstract, full-text etc- Table 1.

Author Response
The search strategy in each database will be limited to Title and Abstract. We have included a statement this specification under ‘Search Strategy’.

The authors identified four peer-reviewed databases- is peer review an inclusion/exclusion criteria for the review? Will the hand-searched citations need to be peer reviewed too?

Author Response
The review will focus on evidence that has been peer reviewed and is a criteria to be included. We will be searching CINAHL which contains both peer-review and grey literature so would only include the peer-reviewed material. We have included a sentence under ‘Search Strategy’ to explicitly state this.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 18 Aug 2022

Andrew Darley, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

18 Aug 2022

Author Response

Dear Reviewers,

We are grateful for the time and effort committed by you in evaluating our manuscript. Based on your feedback, we have amended the paper and provided responses ... Continue reading Dear Reviewers,

We are grateful for the time and effort committed by you in evaluating our manuscript. Based on your feedback, we have amended the paper and provided responses to each comment below. We believe we have appropriately addressed your suggestions and the protocol is stronger as a result.

Best Wishes,
The Author Team

Reviewer Comment

Introduction: The figure 4-59% prevalence of frailty in older people is quite a big range. It would be helpful if the authors could reference the weighted prevalence of 10.7% reported as well (Collard et al., 2012).¹ Also the weighted prevalence of pre-frailty (41.6%) would provide additional background on the importance of research in this area.

Author Response
Thank you for this suggestion and statistics. We have reworded this statement to include the weighted prevalence for frailty and pre-frailty.

If available, it would be useful if the authors could reference some examples of meta-ethnographic approaches applied to digital health and older people with other health conditions. This would provide some concrete examples of the benefits of this methodology in digital health.

Author Response
We have identified two studies that adopted meta-ethnography to study older adults’ experience of digital health. We were unable to identify studies specific to frailty care. This has been included under ‘Protocol’ where the method is explained and refers to other healthcare settings in which it has been applied.

Research Aims:
I am unclear on the first aim- does this systematic review aim to explore the experiences of older adults and family carers (i.e. care dyads)? Or does the SR aim to explore the experiences of older adults and/or family carers?

If the latter, the sample search terms in Table 1 will need slight modification. As they’re currently designed this search strategy require that both older people with frailty and family carer key words need to be present. This could miss literature focusing on older people but not family carers and vice versa.

Author Response
The review will focus on exploring experiences of older adults and/or family carers. We have amended the search strategy to clarify and reflect the target sample

Methods: Depending on the authors’ response to my research aims query- Table 1 may require an edit.

Author Response
This has been edited based on previous comment.

For replicability, it would be useful if the authors’ would specify within what limits each string will search i.e. title, abstract, full-text etc- Table 1.

Author Response
The search strategy in each database will be limited to Title and Abstract. We have included a statement this specification under ‘Search Strategy’.

The authors identified four peer-reviewed databases- is peer review an inclusion/exclusion criteria for the review? Will the hand-searched citations need to be peer reviewed too?

Author Response
The review will focus on evidence that has been peer reviewed and is a criteria to be included. We will be searching CINAHL which contains both peer-review and grey literature so would only include the peer-reviewed material. We have included a sentence under ‘Search Strategy’ to explicitly state this.
Dear Reviewers,

We are grateful for the time and effort committed by you in evaluating our manuscript. Based on your feedback, we have amended the paper and provided responses to each comment below. We believe we have appropriately addressed your suggestions and the protocol is stronger as a result.

Best Wishes,
The Author Team

Reviewer Comment

Introduction: The figure 4-59% prevalence of frailty in older people is quite a big range. It would be helpful if the authors could reference the weighted prevalence of 10.7% reported as well (Collard et al., 2012).¹ Also the weighted prevalence of pre-frailty (41.6%) would provide additional background on the importance of research in this area.

Author Response
Thank you for this suggestion and statistics. We have reworded this statement to include the weighted prevalence for frailty and pre-frailty.

If available, it would be useful if the authors could reference some examples of meta-ethnographic approaches applied to digital health and older people with other health conditions. This would provide some concrete examples of the benefits of this methodology in digital health.

Author Response
We have identified two studies that adopted meta-ethnography to study older adults’ experience of digital health. We were unable to identify studies specific to frailty care. This has been included under ‘Protocol’ where the method is explained and refers to other healthcare settings in which it has been applied.

Research Aims:
I am unclear on the first aim- does this systematic review aim to explore the experiences of older adults and family carers (i.e. care dyads)? Or does the SR aim to explore the experiences of older adults and/or family carers?

If the latter, the sample search terms in Table 1 will need slight modification. As they’re currently designed this search strategy require that both older people with frailty and family carer key words need to be present. This could miss literature focusing on older people but not family carers and vice versa.

Author Response
The review will focus on exploring experiences of older adults and/or family carers. We have amended the search strategy to clarify and reflect the target sample

Methods: Depending on the authors’ response to my research aims query- Table 1 may require an edit.

Author Response
This has been edited based on previous comment.

For replicability, it would be useful if the authors’ would specify within what limits each string will search i.e. title, abstract, full-text etc- Table 1.

Author Response
The search strategy in each database will be limited to Title and Abstract. We have included a statement this specification under ‘Search Strategy’.

The authors identified four peer-reviewed databases- is peer review an inclusion/exclusion criteria for the review? Will the hand-searched citations need to be peer reviewed too?

Author Response
The review will focus on evidence that has been peer reviewed and is a criteria to be included. We will be searching CINAHL which contains both peer-review and grey literature so would only include the peer-reviewed material. We have included a sentence under ‘Search Strategy’ to explicitly state this.
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 13 May 2022

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2
Version 2 (revision) 18 Aug 22	read
Version 1 13 May 22	read	read

Áine Teahan, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland
Gloria A Aguayo, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

8 Views

19 Aug 2022 | for Version 2

Áine Teahan, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

8 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Many thanks to the author for addressing and replying to my comments. This is an important area of research particularly in the context of ageing, family carers and digital health. I have no further comments and look forward to reading future findings.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

I am currently working on a research project exploring digital health for older people with multi-morbidity. My previous research has focused on psychosocial support for family carers of people with dementia. I am broadly familiar with the field of frailty. I have also conducted systematic reviews in the past.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

8 Views

06 Jun 2022 | for Version 1

Gloria A Aguayo, Department of Precision Health, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Strassen, Luxembourg

8 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Healthy ageing, frailty, diabetes.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

24 Views

01 Jun 2022 | for Version 1

Áine Teahan, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

24 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Not applicable

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

18 Aug 2022

Andrew Darley, School of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland

Dear Reviewers,

We are grateful for the time and effort committed by you in evaluating our manuscript. Based on your feedback, we have amended the paper and provided responses to each comment below. We believe we have appropriately addressed your suggestions and the protocol is stronger as a result.

Best Wishes,
The Author Team

Reviewer Comment

Introduction: The figure 4-59% prevalence of frailty in older people is quite a big range. It would be helpful if the authors could reference the weighted prevalence of 10.7% reported as well (Collard et al., 2012).¹ Also the weighted prevalence of pre-frailty (41.6%) would provide additional background on the importance of research in this area.

Author Response
Thank you for this suggestion and statistics. We have reworded this statement to include the weighted prevalence for frailty and pre-frailty.

If available, it would be useful if the authors could reference some examples of meta-ethnographic approaches applied to digital health and older people with other health conditions. This would provide some concrete examples of the benefits of this methodology in digital health.

Author Response
We have identified two studies that adopted meta-ethnography to study older adults’ experience of digital health. We were unable to identify studies specific to frailty care. This has been included under ‘Protocol’ where the method is explained and refers to other healthcare settings in which it has been applied.

Research Aims:
I am unclear on the first aim- does this systematic review aim to explore the experiences of older adults and family carers (i.e. care dyads)? Or does the SR aim to explore the experiences of older adults and/or family carers?

If the latter, the sample search terms in Table 1 will need slight modification. As they’re currently designed this search strategy require that both older people with frailty and family carer key words need to be present. This could miss literature focusing on older people but not family carers and vice versa.

Author Response
The review will focus on exploring experiences of older adults and/or family carers. We have amended the search strategy to clarify and reflect the target sample

Methods: Depending on the authors’ response to my research aims query- Table 1 may require an edit.

Author Response
This has been edited based on previous comment.

For replicability, it would be useful if the authors’ would specify within what limits each string will search i.e. title, abstract, full-text etc- Table 1.

Author Response
The search strategy in each database will be limited to Title and Abstract. We have included a statement this specification under ‘Search Strategy’.

The authors identified four peer-reviewed databases- is peer review an inclusion/exclusion criteria for the review? Will the hand-searched citations need to be peer reviewed too?

Author Response
The review will focus on evidence that has been peer reviewed and is a criteria to be included. We will be searching CINAHL which contains both peer-review and grey literature so would only include the peer-reviewed material. We have included a sentence under ‘Search Strategy’ to explicitly state this.

View more View less

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. World Health Organization: Global strategy and action plan on ageing and health. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Reference Source

[2] 2. Eurostat: Ageing Europe: Looking at the lives of older people in Europe. Luxembourg. Publications Office of the European Union; 2020. Reference Source

[3] 3. World Health Organization: Preventing chronic diseases: a vital investment. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2018.

[4] 4. Goryakin Y, Thiébaut SP, Cortaredona S, et al.: Assessing the future medical cost burden for the European health systems under alternative exposure-to-risks scenarios. PLoS One. 2020; 15(9): e0238565. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[5] 5. European Commission: Towards better prevention and management of chronic disease. Brussels: European Commission, Public Health; 2016. Reference Source

[6] 6. OECD: Preventing ageing unequally. Paris: OECI iLibrary; 2017. Publisher Full Text

[7] 7. Edemekong PF, Bomgaars DL, Sukumaran S, et al.: Activities of Daily Living. [Updated 2022 Feb 17]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2022. Reference Source

[8] 8. Salinas-Rodríguez A, Manrique-Espinoza B, Torres Mussot I, et al.: Out-of-pocket healthcare expenditures in dependent older adults: results from an economic evaluation study in Mexico. Front Public Health. 2020; 8: 329. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[9] 9. Abegunde DO, Stanciole AE: The economic impact of chronic diseases: how do households respond to shocks? Evidence from Russia. Soc Sci Med. 2008; 66(11): 2296–307. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Jeon YH, Essue B, Jan S, et al.: Economic hardship associated with managing chronic illness: a qualitative inquiry. BMC Health Serv Res. 2009; 9: 182. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[11] 11. Krůtilová VK, Bahnsen L, De Graeve D: The out-of-pocket burden of chronic diseases: the cases of Belgian, Czech and German older adults. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21(1): 239. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[12] 12. Escobar Alonso F. Prieto Paredes F, Gil Soler M, et al.: Estrés por sobrecarga del cuidador de personas dependientes. Revista Médica. 2019. Reference Source

[13] 13. Tabueña Lafarga M. Muñoz Iranzo J, Fabà Ribera J: La sensibilización y la prevención de los malos tratos a las personas mayores. Barcelona: Obra Social La Caixa. 2016. Reference Source

[14] 14. Vitaliano PP, Zhang J, Scanlan JM: Is caregiving hazardous to one's physical health? A meta-analysis. Psychol Bull. 2003; 129(6): 946–72. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[15] 15. Hallarman L: The Invisible Second Patient: Supporting the Family Caregiver. Boston: Harvard University. National Center for Equitable Care for Elders; 2021. Reference Source

[16] 16. Clegg A, Young J, Iliffe S, et al.: Frailty in elder people. Lancet. 2013; 381: 752–62. Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Rohrmann S: Epidemiology of frailty in older people. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2020; 1261: 21–7. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Kojima G, Liljas AEM, Iliffe S: Frailty syndrome: implications and challenges for health care policy. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2019; 12: 23–30. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[19] 19. Tarazona-Santabalbina FJ, Gómez-Cabrera MC, Pérez-Ros P, et al.: A Multicomponent Exercise Intervention that Reverses Frailty and Improves Cognition, Emotion, and Social Networking in the Community-Dwelling Frail Elderly: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2016; 17(5): 426–33. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[20] 20. Peña-Longobardo LM, Oliva-Moreno J, Zozaya N, et al.: Economic evaluation of a multimodal intervention in pre-frail and frail older people with diabetes mellitus: the MID-FRAIL project. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2021; 21(1): 111–8. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Maeder A: Digital Technology Trends Supporting Assisted Independent Living of Ageing Population. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2020; 270: 577–81. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Tannou T, Lihoreau T, Gagnon-Roy M, et al.: Effectiveness of smart living environments to support older adults to age in place in their community: an umbrella review protocol. BMJ Open. 2022; 12(1): e054235. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[23] 23. World Health Organization: Using e-health and information technology to improve health. Geneva: World Health Organization. Reference Source

[24] 24. Christophorou C, Kleanthous S, Georgiadis D, et al.: ICT services for active ageing and independent living: identification and assessment. Healthc Technol Lett. 2016; 3(3): 159–64. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[25] 25. Kampmeijer R, Pavlova M, Tambor M, et al.: The use of e-health and m-health tools in health promotion and primary prevention among older adults: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016; 16(Suppl 5): 290. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[26] 26. Haase KR, Cosco T, Kervin L, et al.: Older adults' experiences with using technology for socialization during the COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-sectional survey study. JMIR Aging. 2021; 4(2): e28010. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[27] 27. Lin JT, Lane JM: Falls in the elderly population. Phys Med Rehabil Clin N Am. 2005; 16(1): 109–28. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[28] 28. Botsis T, Hartvigsen G: Current status and future perspectives in telecare for elderly people suffering from chronic diseases. J Telemed Telecare. 2008; 14(4): 195–203. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Ramos-Ríos R, Mateos R, Lojo D, et al.: Telepsychogeriatrics: a new horizon in the care of mental health problems in the elderly. Int Psychogeriatr. 2012; 24(11): 1708–24. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Coker E, Ploeg J, Kaasalainen S, et al.: A concept analysis of oral hygiene care in dependent older adults. J Adv Nurs. 2013; 69(10): 2360–71. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Liu L, Stroulia E, Nikolaidis I, et al.: Smart homes and home health monitoring technologies for older adults: A systematic review. Int J Med Inform. 2016; 91: 44–59. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[32] 32. Worster B, Swartz K: Telemedicine and palliative care: An increasing role in supportive oncology. Curr Oncol Rep. 2017; 19(6): 37. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[33] 33. Malkina A, Tuot DS: Role of telehealth in renal replacement therapy education. Semin Dial. 2018; 31(2): 129–34. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[34] 34. Buyl R, Beogo I, Fobelets M, et al.: e-Health interventions for healthy aging: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2020; 9(1): 128. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[35] 35. Linn N, Goetzinger C, Regnaux JP, et al.: Digital health interventions among people living with frailty: a scoping review. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2021; 22(9): 1802–12.e21. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[36] 36. Sumner J, Chong LS, Bundele A, et al.: Co-Designing Technology for Aging in Place: A Systematic Review. Gerontologist. 2021; 61(7): e395–e409. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[37] 37. Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A: Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res. 2012; 22(10): 1435–43. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[38] 38. Darley A, Dix R, Rocher E, et al.: PRISMA-P-checklist Systematic Review Protocol. Figshare. Figure. 2022. http://www.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19657053

[39] 39. Noblit GW, Hare HD: Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies. Thousand Oaks CA; Sage, 1988. Reference Source

[40] 40. Saragosa M, Jeffs L, Okrainec K, et al.: Using meta-ethnography to understand the care transition experience of people with dementia and their caregivers. Dementia (London). 2022; 21(1): 153–80. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[41] 41. Morgan GS, Willmott M, Ben-Shlomo Y, et al.: A life fulfilled: positively influencing physical activity in older adults - a systematic review and meta-ethnography. BMC Public Health. 2019; 19(1): 362. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[42] 42. Carter DD, Robinson K, Forbes J, et al.: Experiences of mobile health in promoting physical activity: A qualitative systematic review and meta-ethnography. PLoS One. 2018; 13(12): e0208759. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[43] 43. France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N, et al.: Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019; 19(1: 25. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[44] 44. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, et al.: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth. 2020; 18(10): 2119–26. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[45] 45. Cahill M, Robinson K, Pettigrew J, et al.: Qualitative synthesis: a guide to conducting a meta-ethnography. Br J Occup Ther. 2018; 81(3): 129–37. Publisher Full Text

[46] 46. Sattar R, Lawton R, Panagioti M, et al.: Meta-ethnography in healthcare research: a guide to using a meta-ethnographic approach for literature synthesis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021; 21(1): 50. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[47] 47. Campbell R, Pound P, Morgan M, et al.: Evaluating meta-ethnography: systematic analysis and synthesis of qualitative research. Health Technol Assess. 2011; 15(43): 1–164. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text

[48] 48. Toye F, Seers K, Allcock N, et al.: 'Trying to pin down jelly' - exploring intuitive processes in quality assessment for meta-ethnography. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013; 13: 46. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text

[49] 49. Doyle LH: Synthesis through meta-ethnography: paradoxes, enhancements, and possibilities. Qual Res. 2003; 3(3): 321–44. Publisher Full Text

[50] 50. Noblit G, Hare R: A meta-ethnographic approach and the Freeman refutation of Mead. In: Atkinson P, Delamont S (Eds.). SAGE Qualitative Research Methods. London: Sage Publishing, 2010; 1: 337–54.

Older adults and family caregivers’ experience of digital health technology in frailty care: A systematic review and meta-ethnography protocol

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Research aims

Protocol

Phase 1: Selecting meta-ethnography and getting started

Phase 2: Deciding what is relevant to research aim

Table 1. Search terms for systematic review.

Table 2. Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, and Research type tool (SPIDER) table of study inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Phase 3: Reading the studies

Phase 4: Determining how the studies are related

Phase 5: Translating the studies into one another

Phase 6: Synthesizing the translations

Phase 7: Expressing the synthesis

Conclusions

Data availability

Underlying data

Reporting guidelines

Acknowledgments

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!

Older adults and family caregivers’ experience of digital health technology in frailty care: A systematic review and meta-ethnography protocol

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Research aims

Protocol

Phase 1: Selecting meta-ethnography and getting started

Phase 2: Deciding what is relevant to research aim

Table 1. Search terms for systematic review.

Table 2. Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, and Research type tool (SPIDER) table of study inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Phase 3: Reading the studies

Phase 4: Determining how the studies are related

Phase 5: Translating the studies into one another

Phase 6: Synthesizing the translations

Phase 7: Expressing the synthesis

Conclusions

Data availability

Underlying data

Reporting guidelines

Acknowledgments

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated

Are you a HRB-funded researcher?

Thank you!