Home › Research › Health systems and care delivery
Predicting discharge to institutional long-term care following acute hospitalisation: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Jennifer Kirsty Harrison, Katherine E Walesby, Lorna Hamilton, Carolyn Armstrong, John M Starr, Emma L Reynish, Alasdair M J MacLullich, Terry J Quinn et al.. Age and ageing, 2017-07-01
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
from 9,176 records, we included 23 studies (n = 354,985 participants). Studies were heterogeneous, with the proportions discharged to a care home 3-77% (median 15%). Eleven studies (n = 12,642), of moderate to low quality, were included in the quantitative synthesis. The need for institutional long-term care was associated with age (pooled odds ratio (OR) 1.02, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.00-1.04), female sex (pooled OR 1.41, 95% CI: 1.03-1.92), dementia (pooled OR 2.14, 95% CI: 1.24-3.70) and functional dependency (pooled OR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.58-2.69). discharge to long-term institutional care following acute hospitalisation is common, but current data do not allow prediction of who will make this transition. Potentially important predictors evaluated in community cohorts have not been examined in hospitalised cohorts. Understanding these predictors could help identify individuals at risk early in their admission, and support them in this transition or potentially intervene to reduce their risk.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Harrison, J. K., Walesby, K. E., Hamilton, L., Armstrong, C., Starr, J. M., Reynish, E. L., et al. (2017). Predicting discharge to institutional long-term care following acute hospitalisation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age and ageing. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afx047
Vancouver
Harrison JK, Walesby KE, Hamilton L, Armstrong C, Starr JM, Reynish EL, et al. Predicting discharge to institutional long-term care following acute hospitalisation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Age and ageing. 2017. doi:10.1093/ageing/afx047. PMID: 28444124.
BibTeX
@article{harrison2017-28444124,
author = {Harrison, Jennifer Kirsty and Walesby, Katherine E and Hamilton, Lorna and Armstrong, Carolyn and Starr, John M and Reynish, Emma L and MacLullich, Alasdair M J and Quinn, Terry J and others},
title = {{Predicting discharge to institutional long-term care following acute hospitalisation: a systematic review and meta-analysis}},
journal = {Age and ageing},
year = {2017},
doi = {10.1093/ageing/afx047},
pmid = {28444124},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afx047}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record's author list ends in “et al.”, so not every author is named. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- from 9,176 records, we included 23 studies (n = 354,985 participants).
- Studies were heterogeneous, with the proportions discharged to a care home 3-77% (median 15%).
- Eleven studies (n = 12,642), of moderate to low quality, were included in the quantitative synthesis.
- The need for institutional long-term care was associated with age (pooled odds ratio (OR) 1.02, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.00-1.04), female sex (pooled OR 1.41, 95% CI: 1.03-1.92), dementia (pooled OR 2.14, 95% CI: 1.24-3.70) and functional dependency (pooled OR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.58-2.69). discharge to long-term institutional care following acute hospitalisation is common, but current data do not allow prediction of who will make this transition.
- Potentially important predictors evaluated in community cohorts have not been examined in hospitalised cohorts.
Study details
- Study designsystematic review
- Participants354,985
- Effect sizeOR 1.41; OR 2.14; OR 2.06
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 86/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal, and it is a systematic review of all the studies on the question. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record, multi-centre collaboration and free to read, so those were left out: it earned 48 of the 56 points we could judge it on, which is 86 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Age and ageing) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 12 / 12 | A systematic review of all the studies on the question |
| Strength of evidence | 5 / 5 | Rated “high” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 2 / 5 | 2017 — within 10 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 4 / 4 | 354,985 participants |
| Effect reported | 3 / 3 | Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar) |
| Studied in people | 3 / 3 | Studied in people (participant count stated) |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 28444124) |
| Free to read | — / 2 | Access not recorded — left out of this score |
| Points | 48 / 56 | Scored on 10 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 48 of the 56 points we could judge it on is 86 out of 100. |
| Total | 86 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related studies in Health systems and care delivery
Also tagged “assisted-living”
199 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assisted-living”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 199 tagged studies.