ty -jour a2 -Coelho -júnior，HélioJ。Au -Lekan，Deborah A. Au -Collins，Susan K. Au -Hayajneh，Audai A. Py -2021 DA -2021/06/02 TI-定性定义的定义研究：定性系统评价SP -6285058 VL -2021 AB-本定性系统评价的目的是检查如何在概念上和操作上定义脆弱的定义研究，以将参与者纳入定性研究，重点是社区生活中脆弱的年龄较大的经验成年人。搜索六个电子数据库，1994 - 2019年，进行了25项研究。数据收集涉及从研究目的，背景，文献综述，方法和采样策略中提取脆弱的定义。质量评估表明，基于有关参与者招募，抽样和研究人员与参与者之间关系的信息不足，有13项研究（52％）证明了潜在的研究人员偏见。内容分析和概念映射用于数据综合。尽管脆弱通常被定义为一种多维的生物心理社会结构，造成了韧性和对不良结果的脆弱性，但大多数研究根据研究人员，医疗保健专业人员或家庭成员从主观评估中得出的年龄和身体障碍定义了研究人群。但是，13项研究（52％）使用基于目标或基于绩效的定量措施来分类参与者脆弱。在标准化措施或脆弱的客观评估中，整个研究都没有一致性。 Synthesis of the findings yielded four themes: Time, Vulnerability, Loss, and Relationships. The predominance of older age and physical limitations as defining characteristics of frailty raises questions about whether participants were frail, since many older adults at advanced age and with physical limitations are not frail. Lack of clear criteria to classify frailty and reliance on subjective assessment introduces the risk for bias, threatens the validity and interpretation of findings, and hinders transferability of findings to other contexts. Clear frailty inclusion and exclusion criteria and a standardized approach in the reporting of how frailty is conceptually and operationally defined in study abstracts and the methodology used is necessary to facilitate dissemination and development of metasynthesis studies that aggregate qualitative research findings that can be used to inform future research and applications in clinical practice to improve healthcare. SN - 2090-2204 UR - https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6285058 DO - 10.1155/2021/6285058 JF - Journal of Aging Research PB - Hindawi KW - ER -