% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Rommerskirch:163718,
      author       = {Rommerskirch, Mike and Purwins, Daniel and Van Haitsma,
                      Kimberly and Abbott, Katherine M. and Roes, Martina},
      title        = {{I}nstruments for assessing the preferences for everyday
                      living of older people with various care needs across
                      different care settings: an evidence map},
      journal      = {Geriatric nursing},
      volume       = {45},
      issn         = {0197-4572},
      address      = {St. Louis, Mo.},
      publisher    = {Mosby},
      reportid     = {DZNE-2022-00457},
      pages        = {18 - 28},
      year         = {2022},
      note         = {(CC BY-NC-ND)},
      abstract     = {Considering the preferences for everyday living of older
                      people with various care needs across different care
                      settings is important in nursing care. Currently, there is
                      no systematic overview of the various instruments, and it is
                      unclear what instruments exist, and which preferences they
                      measure. We systematically searched for studies in the
                      electronic databases MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsycInfo.
                      Title/abstract and full text screening were performed
                      independently by two researchers. We mapped and described
                      the identified instruments in two tables and one interactive
                      evidence atlas. We identified 67 instruments for assessing
                      the preferences for everyday living of older people with
                      various care needs across different care settings. We
                      clustered the identified instruments into two main
                      categories: broad and specific. The results show a wide
                      range of instrument types and assessment methods. Research
                      gaps exist, for instruments developed for assessing
                      preferences comprehensively for a particular topic for
                      everyday living, particular populations, and settings.},
      keywords     = {Aged / Health Services for the Aged / Humans},
      cin          = {AG Roes},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-2719)1610003},
      pnm          = {353 - Clinical and Health Care Research (POF4-353)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-353},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:35290858},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.gerinurse.2022.02.026},
      url          = {https://pub.dzne.de/record/163718},
}