Experiences of aging in place in the United States: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies

9Citations
Citations of this article
46Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: By 2035, older adults will outnumber children for the first time in the United States (US). In light of its aging population, the US has supported services focused on enabling older adults to continue living in their current homes, a model commonly described as "aging in place." The lived experience of aging in place is not well documented in existing systematic reviews. The aims of this systematic review are to synthesize and evaluate the existing qualitative evidence on experiences of aging in place in the US and identify knowledge gaps and directions for future studies. Methods: Six electronic bibliographic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, EMBASE, and Sociological Abstracts) will be searched. Studies presenting qualitative data on the experiences of older adults currently aging in place in the US will be included. Covidence software will be used to screen studies and extract data. The Joanna Briggs Institute checklist for qualitative research will be used to assess quality and risk of bias of included studies. We will use meta-ethnography, following the method described by Noblit and Hare, to synthesize and evaluate the results of the included studies. Discussion: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review to integrate and synthesize the findings of qualitative studies of aging in place focusing on older adults in the US. The findings of this review will provide in-depth knowledge on lived experiences of aging in place and address important gaps in existing work.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Rosenwohl-Mack, A., Schumacher, K., Fang, M. L., & Fukuoka, Y. (2018). Experiences of aging in place in the United States: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-ethnography of qualitative studies. Systematic Reviews, 7(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0820-8

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free