ArticleBMJ open2025
Exploring the hospitalisation experience of racialised older adults and caregivers living with dementia: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionRacialised older adults living with dementia face various challenges and barriers in receiving culturally sensitive care in hospital settings. Stigma, discrimination and healthcare provider bias toward racialised older adults living with dementia infringe on their right to access quality care services in acute hospital settings and can negatively affect their quality of life. Despite the growing need to integrate culturally sensitive dementia care into acute hospital care, little research has been done in this area. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review is to summarise and map what is known about the hospitalisation experience of racialised older adults with dementia in receiving care and identify research gaps. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: We will use Arksey and O'Malley's framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist to conduct and write the review. The search strategy will use keywords and index terms across selected databases: Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, Medline, PsycINFO and Cumulative Index for Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and hand-searching the reference lists from chosen literature. Grey literature will be searched using Google and the Alzheimer Society websites to find further evidence and literature. Two researchers will screen the titles and abstracts independently by referring to the inclusion criteria. Data from the extracted studies will be reported in tabular and narrative form that answer the scoping review's questions. Research gaps and recommendations for future research will be identified and summarised. The review's results will be shared with stakeholders, policymakers, healthcare professionals and community organisations working with the racialised community and dementia care. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This scoping review does not require ethics approval because it collects data from publicly available resources. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed scientific journals, professional conferences and with community organisations and healthcare providers. REGISTRATION DETAILS: This review is registered in the Open Science Framework registration link:
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.