Care and services for older adults

Risk of bias Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Systematic reviews with high risk of bias

		Primary research included in the systematic reviews
		Quantitative research	Qualitative research
Domain	Needs assessment and follow up regarding older persons	7 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Gallione (2017) Osakwe (2017) Gjerlaug (2016) Sutton (2016) Clegg (2015) Hutchinson (2010) Richards (2003) 9 Systematic reviews with high risk of bias Chow (2016) Chung (2015) De Almeida Mello (2015) Craig (2015) Palmer (2014) Sieliwonczyk (2014) White (2014) Castle (2007) Chalmers (2005)
	Needs assessment and follow up regarding informal carers
	Interventions to support ageing in place	3 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Young (2017) Grant (2014) Pol (2013) 14 Systematic reviews with high risk of bias Al-Shaqi (2016) Carbone (2015) Hirst (2013) Reeder (2013) Winterton (2013) Zhu (2013) Bemelmans (2012) Pearce (2012) Wagner (2012) Pandya (2010) Ryburn (2009) Topo (2009) Spijker (2008) Markle-Reid (2006)	2 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Dawson (2015) Pol (2013) 1 Systematic reviews with high risk of bias Pagan (2015)
	Maintaining and stimulating work methods (only community setting)	13 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Hill (2017) Chen (2016) Cochrane (2016) Strout (2016) Bleakley (2015) Shizheng (2015) Whitehead (2015) Kelly (2014) Morris (2014) Reijnders (2013) Ueda (2013) Van't Leven (2013) Montgomery (2008) 21 Systematic reviews with high risk of bias Chiu (2017) Cooper (2017) Pettersson (2017) Sutipan (2017) Bulsara (2016) Campos (2016) Yusif (2016) Campbell (2015) Chao (2015) De Almeida Mello (2015) Peetoom (2015) Phelan (2015) Cowl (2014) Noice (2014) Toril (2014) McLaren (2013) Gross (2012) Teixeira (2012) Bandayre (2011) Daniels (2010) Medical Advisory Social Secretariat (2008)	1 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Chen (2016) 1 Systematic reviews with high risk of bias Cooper (2017)
	Maintaining and stimulating work methods (only institutional settings)	34 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Goris (2016) Joseph (2016) Jutkowitz (2016) Martin (2016) Petriwskyj (2016) Sheppard (2016) Sjögren (2016) Bunn (2015) elias (2015) Liu (2015) Low (2015) van Bokhorst–de van der Schueren (2014) Coker (2014) Flanagan (2014) Fraser (2014) Konno (2014) Livingston (2014) Soril (2014) Wen (2014) Whear (2014) Whear (2014) Abbott (2013) Brownie (2013) Malderen (2013) SBU (2013) Weening-Verbree (2013) Watson (2012) Hall (2011) Mohler (2011) Stern (2011) Vasse (2010) Hodgkinson (2007) Ostaszkiewicz (2005) Haesler (2004) 42 Systematic reviews with high risk of bias Zhang (2017) Agarwal (2016) Agnihotri (2016) Ausserhofer (2016) Kishita (2016) Mitchell (2016) Rijnaard (2016) Toh (2016) Klainin-Yobas (2015) Hagan (2014) Séchaud (2014) Allen (2013) Cipriani (2013) Guzmán-García (2013) Milligan (2013) Moyle (2013) Subramaniam (2012) Caddell (2011) Konno (2011) Hines (2010) Stern (2010) Wall (2010) Lee (2009) Miegel (2009) O'Connor (2009) Healey (2008) Perkins (2008) Witzke (2008) Bohlmeijer (2007) Hodgkinson (2007) Neville (2007) Koch (2006) Landreville (2006) McKeown (2006) Moos (2006) Pulsford (2006) Spira (2006) Watson (2006) Huei-chuan (2005) Sung (2005) Wang (2005) Lou (2001)	8 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Mignani (2017) Goris (2016) Joseph (2016) Petriwskyj (2016) Vaismoradi (2016) Watkins (2016) Fraser (2014) Whear (2014) 10 Systematic reviews with high risk of bias Nyman (2016) Rijnaard (2016) Séchaud (2014) Guzmán-García (2013) Milligan (2013) Konno (2011) Rigby (2010) Lee (2009) Rafiee (2009) Wang (2005)
	Maintaining and stimulating work methods (both community and institutional settings)	21 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Coll-Planas (2017) Pinto-Bruno (2017) Xu (2017) Franck (2016) Gardiner (2016) Leah (2016) Morilla-Herrera (2016) Park (2016) Zhao (2016) Cowdell (2015) Huang (2015) Kimber (2015) Trabal (2015) Liu (2013) Choi (2012) Virués-Ortega (2012) Dickens (2011) Forsman (2011) Stern (2009) Chin (2007) Milne (2002) 34 Systematic reviews with high risk of bias D'Onofrio (2017) Mugueta-Aguinaga (2017) Geiger (2016) Khosravi (2016) Mostaghel (2016) Weathers (2016) Cohen-Mansfield (2015) Douglas (2015) Li (2015) Tze-Fang (2015) Fields (2014) Fossey (2014) Kachouie (2014) Bernabei (2013) Blake (2013) Vasionytė (2013) Wang (2013) Beard (2012) Hall (2012) Kurz (2011) Linertová (2011) Harris (2010) Lambert (2010) Skingley (2010) Agren Bolmsjo (2008) Watson (2006) Cattan (2005) Hsieh (2003) Lin (2003) Buchanan (2002) Jones (2002) Marshall (2001) Pinquart (2001) Finnema (2000)	2 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Pinto-Bruno (2017) Gardiner (2016) 5 Systematic reviews with high risk of bias Kachouie (2014) Larsson (2014) Wang (2013) Enmarker (2011) Washington (2011)
	Home help as an intervention	2 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Wysocki (2012) Mottram (2002) 1 Systematic reviews with high risk of bias Ramos (2004)	2 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Gregory (2017) Sao (2016)
	Institutional care as an intervention	6 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Easton (2017) Shier (2014) Wysocki (2012) Comondore (2009) Lai (2009) Mason (2007) 3 Systematic reviews with high risk of bias Kong (2009) Froggatt (2006) Turner (2005)	2 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Shier (2014) Bradshaw (2012)
	Interventions addressing abuse and neglect	4 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Gallione (2017) Ayalon (2016) Baker (2016) Ploeg (2009) 1 Systematic reviews with high risk of bias Moore (2017)
	Effects from communication and cognitive devices	2 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Carrion (2016) Cooper (2012) 2 Systematic reviews with high risk of bias Allen (2013) Kueider (2012)	1 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Vandemeulebroucke (2017)
	Support and advice and information	1 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Gravolin (2007) 3 Systematic reviews with high risk of bias Connolly (2012) Waldrop (2008) Hill (2006)	1 Systematic reviews with high risk of bias Connolly (2012)
	Integrated measures or activities	9 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Toles (2016) Chuanmei (2013) Tam-Tham (2013) Trivedi (2013) Chuanmei (2012) Reuther (2012) Low (2011) Collet (2010) Richards (2003) 13 Systematic reviews with high risk of bias Rizzo (2016) Nazir (2013) Ottmann (2013) Phillips (2013) Stewart (2013) Manderson (2012) Soares (2012) LaMantia (2010) Eklund (2009) McGilton (2009) Oeseburg (2009) Preyde (2009) Powell (2003)	1 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Trivedi (2013) 3 Systematic reviews with high risk of bias Arendts (2013) Ottmann (2013) Phillips (2013)
	Support for informal carers	4 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Fearing (2017) Bøttcher (2015) Shaw (2009) Haesler (2004) 6 Systematic reviews with high risk of bias Marasinghe (2016) Lopez-Hartmann (2012) Mason (2007) Jeon (2005) Lui (2005) Sorensen (2002)	3 Systematic reviews with low or moderate risk of bias Fearing (2017) Shaw (2009) Haesler (2004) 1 Systematic reviews with high risk of bias Stoltz (2004)
The number in the symbols represent the number of systematic reviews. The same systematic reviews may appear in more than one place in the graph. Hover over a symbol to see details with links to the systematic reviews. Use the drop-down menus above the graph to filter which systematic reviews are to be displayed.

The table is based on the report Assessment and interventions in care and services for older adults