Mapping Research Conducted on Long-Term Care Facilities for Older People in Brazil: A Scoping Review.


Wachholz PA(1), De Oliveira DC(2), Hinsliff-Smith K(3), Devi R(4), Villas Boas PJF(1), Shepherd V(5), Jacinto AF(6), Watanabe HAW(7), Gordon AL(8)(9), Ricci NA(10).
Author information:
(1)Botucatu Medical School, São Paulo State University, Botucatu SP-01049-010, Brazil.
(2)Department of Psychiatry, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo SP-04021-001, Brazil.
(3)Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Institute of Health, Health Policy and Social Care Research, De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK.
(4)Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9J, UK.
(5)Centre for Trials Research, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF14 4YS, UK.
(6)Geriatric and Gerontology Discipline, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo SP-04021-001, Brazil.
(7)School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo SP-01246-904, Brazil.
(8)Medical School, Royal Derby Hospitals, University of Nottingham, Nottingham DE22 3NE, UK.
(9)NIHR Applied Research Collaboration-East Midlands
(ARC-EM), Nottingham DE22 3NE, UK.
(10)Master's and Doctoral Programs in Physical Therapy, Universidade Cidade de São Paulo, São Paulo SP-03071-000, Brazil.


This scoping review aimed to explore the characteristics, strengths, and gaps in research conducted in Brazilian long-term care facilities (LTCFs) for older adults. Electronic searches investigating the residents (≥60 years old), their families, and the LTCF workforce in Brazil were conducted in Medline, EMBASE, LILACS, and Google Scholar, within the timescale of 1999 to 2018, limited to English, Portuguese, or Spanish. The reference lists were hand searched for additional papers. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) was used for critical appraisal of evidence. Data were reported descriptively considering the study design, using content analysis: 327 studies were included (n = 159 quantitative non-randomized, n = 82 quantitative descriptive, n = 67 qualitative, n = 11 mixed methods, n = 6 randomized controlled trials, and n = 2 translation of assessment tools). Regardless of the study design, most were conducted in a single LTCF (45.8%), in urban locations (84.3%), and in non-profit settings (38.7%). The randomized trials and descriptive studies presented the lowest methodological quality based on the MMAT. This is the first review to provide an overview of research on LTCFs for older people in Brazil. It illustrates an excess of small-scale, predominantly qualitative papers, many of which are reported in ways that do not allow the quality of the work to be assured.