TY - JOUR
T1 - Psychometric characteristics of comprehensive geriatric assessments (CGAs) for long-term care facilities and community care
T2 - A systematic review
AU - Molinari-Ulate, Mauricio
AU - Mahmoudi, Aysan
AU - Franco-Martín, Manuel A.
AU - van der Roest, Henriëtte G.
N1 - Funding Information: This work was supported by the Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions Innovative Training Network H2020-MSCA-ITN [grant agreement number 813196 ]. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Authors
PY - 2022/11/1
Y1 - 2022/11/1
N2 - Background: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessments (CGAs) have been incorporated as an integrated care approach effective to face the challenges associated to uncoordinated care, risk of hospitalization, unmet needs, and care planning experienced in older adult care. As they assessed different dimensions, is important to inform about the content and psychometric properties to guide the decisions when selecting and implementing them in practice. This systematic review provides a comprehensive insight on the strengths and weaknesses of the CGAs used in long-term care settings and community care. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science Core Collection. Studies published up to July 13, 2021, were considered. Quality appraisal was performed for the included studies. Results: A total of 10 different CGAs were identified from 71 studies included. Three instruments were reported for long-term care settings, and seven for community care. The content was not homogenous and differed in terms of the detail and clearness of the areas being evaluated. Evidence for good to excellent validity and reliability was reported for various instruments. Conclusions: Setting more specific and clear domains, associated to the special needs of the care setting, could improve informed decisions at the time of selecting and implementing a CGA. Considering the amount and quality of the evidence, the instrument development trajectory, the validation in different languages, and availability in different care settings, we recommend the interRAI LTCF and interRAI HC to be used for long-term facilities and community care.
AB - Background: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessments (CGAs) have been incorporated as an integrated care approach effective to face the challenges associated to uncoordinated care, risk of hospitalization, unmet needs, and care planning experienced in older adult care. As they assessed different dimensions, is important to inform about the content and psychometric properties to guide the decisions when selecting and implementing them in practice. This systematic review provides a comprehensive insight on the strengths and weaknesses of the CGAs used in long-term care settings and community care. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science Core Collection. Studies published up to July 13, 2021, were considered. Quality appraisal was performed for the included studies. Results: A total of 10 different CGAs were identified from 71 studies included. Three instruments were reported for long-term care settings, and seven for community care. The content was not homogenous and differed in terms of the detail and clearness of the areas being evaluated. Evidence for good to excellent validity and reliability was reported for various instruments. Conclusions: Setting more specific and clear domains, associated to the special needs of the care setting, could improve informed decisions at the time of selecting and implementing a CGA. Considering the amount and quality of the evidence, the instrument development trajectory, the validation in different languages, and availability in different care settings, we recommend the interRAI LTCF and interRAI HC to be used for long-term facilities and community care.
KW - CGA
KW - Community care
KW - Comprehensive geriatric assessment
KW - Long-term care
KW - Reliability
KW - Validity
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85139029389&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2022.101742
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arr.2022.101742
M3 - Review article
C2 - 36184026
SN - 1568-1637
VL - 81
JO - Ageing Research Reviews
JF - Ageing Research Reviews
M1 - 101742
ER -