You are here

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Qualitative research
Protocol
Decision-making on the location of care of the elderly: protocol for a systematic review of qualitative studies
  1. Gema Serrano-Gemes1,
  2. Rafael Serrano-del-Rosal2,
  3. Manuel Rich-Ruiz3
  1. 1 Universidad de Córdoba (UCO), Instituto Maimónides de Investigación Biomédica de Córdoba (IMIBIC), Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía (HURS), Cordoba, Andalucía, Spain
  2. 2 Instituto de Estudios Sociales Avanzados (IESA-CSIC), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, Cordoba, Andalucía, Spain
  3. 3 Universidad de Córdoba (UCO), Instituto Maimónides de Investigación Biomédica de Córdoba (IMIBIC), Hospital Universitario Reina Sofía (HURS), CIBERFES (CIBER de Fragilidad y Envejecimiento Saludable), Cordoba, Spain
  1. Correspondence to Gema Serrano-Gemes; gemaserranogemes{at}hotmail.com

Abstract

Introduction The elderly must take part in the management of their own health. One of the aspects they should be able to decide on is the place where they want to live. The aim of this review is to synthetise qualitative evidence in order to understand how decisions are made on the location of care of the elderly.

Methods and analysis Systematic review of qualitative studies. Six databases have been consulted: Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL Complete, PsycINFO and SciELO Citation Index (from the beginning to 29 November 2017). The inclusion criteria will be: studies that deal with the decision-making process on the location of care of the elderly (already experienced by the participants), original studies, qualitative or mixed-method studies and studies written in English or Spanish. The obtained results will be exported to the Zotero bibliography manager. The references will be reviewed by title and abstract and, later, the complete texts will be reviewed for their inclusion. A tool created for this study will be used to extract the data. The quality will be assessed with Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Español. The data synthesis will be carried out using the constant comparative method. All this process will be performed independently by two reviewers. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research has been used to draw up this protocol.

Ethics and dissemination This protocol did not require ethical approval, since it is a protocol for a systematic review. The plans to disseminate our results include publishing a research paper in a high-impact journal in our study area. Also, if possible, our results will be presented in scientific conferences. Besides, the obtained results will complement and discuss the doctoral thesis of one of the authors of the review.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42018084826.

  • qualitative research
  • decision making
  • aged
  • location of care
  • independent living
  • institutionalization

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022411

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors G-S-G conceived the study and the study design. G-S-G developed and executed the search strategy. G-S-G, R-S-d-R and M-R-R helped draft the protocol, edited the draft protocol, read and approved the final manuscript.

    • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Patient consent Not required.

    • Ethics approval This protocol did not require ethical approval, since it is a protocol for a systematic review.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.