https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2437-8644
Figures
Abstract
Background
Population aging worldwide continues to intensify the demand for family and friend carers to support older adults. Informal carers have long identified information gaps as a key challenge in their caregiving role, underscoring the importance of effective communication and collaboration with healthcare professionals (HCPs).
Objectives
To complete a comprehensive review of qualitative research and to synthesize what is known about the barriers and facilitators to information sharing between carers of older adults and HCPs.
Methods
This protocol outlines a systematic review that follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and PRISMA-P 2015 guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO on May 5, 2025. Our goal is to identify qualitative studies that meet our “PICo” (Population, phenomena of Interest, Context) eligibility criteria. Population includes carers and HCPs. Phenomena of interest is information sharing between the two populations. Context is carers who provide care to older adults aged 60 or above in any care setting. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts and full texts. We will use Covidence Extraction 2.0 for extraction of data from included records. Qualitative data from included records will be synthesized using Lockwood’s meta-aggregation and Sandelowski’s meta-summary approach to describe the experiences of information sharing reported within the literature.
Discussion
By comprehensively evaluating barriers and facilitators to information sharing within the literature, this review will offer significant insights into supporting more effective communication between carers and HCPs. Findings will inform the development of new strategies designed to optimize communication processes between carers and HCPs, with the ultimate goal of improving outcomes for older adults requiring caregiving support. This synthesis of current evidence will also identify gaps for further investigation and underscore the need for innovative communication solutions in diverse healthcare contexts.
Citation: Hall S, Cammer A, Chamberlain S, Baskerville K, Fani C, Li Z, et al. (2026) Information sharing between family and friend carers of older adults and healthcare professionals: Protocol for a systematic review of qualitative studies. PLoS One 21(2): e0331717. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331717
Editor: Steve Zimmerman, Public Library of Science, UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
Received: August 17, 2025; Accepted: January 23, 2026; Published: February 10, 2026
Copyright: © 2026 Hall et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Background
Population aging is a global phenomenon driving the increasing need for family and friend (also known as “informal”) carers to support older adults [1]. As the number of older adults continues to grow, it is crucial to address the support needs of carers who play a vital role in providing support to the aging population [2,3]. Carers of older adults have consistently expressed the importance of information sharing between healthcare professionals (HCPs) and themselves about their care recipients, as highlighted in various studies [4–11]. Information sharing is essential for ensuring all parties involved in a patient’s care have access to accurate, timely, and comprehensive information [12]. A previous scoping review determined that the need for information about their care recipient was a support priority for carers [13]. As such, effective communication and sharing of information is crucial for ensuring high-quality patient care and outcomes.
Rationale
Family and friend carers consistently describe information exchange with HCPs as a hallmark of safe, person-centred care for older adults, yet the evidence base remains fragmented. The most closely related synthesis to our knowledge is an integrative review by Morrow and Nicholson [14]. In their review, they observed information sharing as only one of six components of engagement. Their review was restricted to acute care settings and was published 10 years ago. To our knowledge, no systematic review using qualitative synthesis methods has since addressed this gap.
However, recent qualitative studies have highlighted the topic and the heterogeneity of contexts in which problems persist. For example, carers of head and neck cancer patients have reported inadequate communication about post-surgical side-effects and difficulty accessing tailored education before discharge [15]. In a study by Ferguson et al. [10], heart failure caregiver-patient dyads and HCPs described unmet informational needs regarding symptom recognition, medication management, and navigation of health services. Furthermore, in a study by Leone et al. [16] describing rural care settings, family and friend carers of persons with dementia explained the experience of having to search on their own for trustworthy service information with limited guidance from HCPs. Lastly, in Chinese nursing homes, lack of honest information sharing and low trust were major barriers to engaging residents and family and friend carers in advance care planning conversations [17]. Knowledge exists on information sharing within the wider literature and this planned systematic review aims to consolidate the existing knowledge of the concept of information sharing between carers and HCPs.
Objectives
The objective of this planned systematic review of qualitative studies is to synthesize what is known about the barriers and facilitators to information sharing between carers of older adults and HCPs. The two overarching research questions guiding this systematic review are:
- What are the reported experiences of information sharing between family and friend carers of older adults and HCPs?
- What barriers and facilitators influence information sharing in these interactions across care settings?
Methods
To achieve the aforementioned objectives, we are using the systematic review approach with meta-aggregation [18] and meta-summary [19] as suggested by the “Right Review” tool [20] and in consultation with a health sciences librarian. Our systematic review will be guided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews [21] and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses [22] statement [22]. This protocol is structured in accordance with PRISMA-P 2015 guidelines [23,24]. The PRISMA-P 2015 checklist is included as S1 File. The review team is led by a masters-prepared registered nurse and PhD-trainee (SH). The team currently comprises of a PhD-prepared registered nurse (HMO); a PhD-prepared registered dietitian (AC); a PhD-prepared health services researcher (SC); a masters-prepared registered nurse research associate (KB); and two undergraduate nursing (BScN) honours students (CF and ZL). Given the topic’s relevance to health service delivery, this team is well positioned to take on this review.
Registration and current status
Our protocol is registered in the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database (registration number: CRD420250636906). We carried out our search on May 5, 2025, and conducted a preliminary review of records on Covidence [25]. As of January 20, 2026, we continue to screen titles and abstracts of 5448 records that were located from our information sources, mentioned later in this protocol.
Eligibility criteria
As recommended in the literature on qualitative meta-aggregation [18], we used the “PICo” mnemonic (Population, phenomena of Interest, Context) to craft our research question and set our eligibility criteria. Eligibility criteria for inclusion in this planned systematic review will be (1) a sample population of family and friend carers or HCPs; (2) a phenomena of interest being information sharing between carers and HCPs; and (3) the context is care of older adults in any setting.
There will be no date limits imposed on inclusion to capture the breadth of literature on this topic and to examine if any changes in needs or priorities for information sharing have occurred over time. In addition to the PICo variables, inclusion criteria will be: completed research studies that are qualitative or mixed methods with a relevant qualitative component. Findings in the qualitative studies or qualitative components of mixed methods studies must report participants’ experiences of information sharing. Exclusion criteria will include: editorials, clinical case studies, reviews, expert opinion papers, and studies that were published as abstracts only. Considering the review team is fluent in English only, we will reach out to other faculty members in our department for assistance with translating records not published in English. If a record is published in a language other than English of which we cannot find a colleague to translate, we will use DeepL [26] software, a reliable translation tool that was recommended during our consultation with the health sciences librarian. Eligibility criteria are also listed in S2 File and are described in more detail using the PICo framework in the following paragraphs.
Population.
The population of focus is family and friend carers (also referred to as informal carers or caregivers) interacting with HCPs, or HCPs interacting with family and friend carers. Family and friend carers are defined as people who take on an “unpaid caring role for someone who needs help because of a physical or cognitive condition, an injury or a chronic life-limiting illness” [27]). The operational definition of caregiving to be used in this review was crafted in a concept analysis, comprehensive of nursing, sociology, and psychology perspectives:
“Caregiving is the process of helping another person who is unable to do for themselves in a ‘holistic’ (physically, mentally, emotionally, and socially) manner. Caregiving is facilitated by certain character traits, emotional skills, knowledge, time, and an emotional connection with the care recipient” [28, p. 15].
Phenomena of interest.
The phenomena of interest to be examined in this systematic review is “information sharing” between family and friend carers and HCPs, involving the exchange of relevant patient health information to support coordinated, safe, and effective care [12,17] . An included study can examine either population’s experience (i.e., HCPs information sharing experiences with carers or carers information sharing experiences with HCPs). Information sharing involves the transfer or exchange of patient-related data, such as medical history, care plans, test results, and follow-up needs, between caregivers and HCPs to facilitate decision-making and continuity of care [12,29]. It can be bidirectional, with both caregivers and HCPs contributing and accessing information, and may occur through various means, including written documents, electronic health records (EHRs), and direct communication [30,31]. For the purposes of this review, we will focus on information sharing via direct communication.
Context.
Carers and HCPs must be caring for older adults within the study. Due to our qualitative synthesis approach and the previously iterated review objectives, any care delivery setting is appropriate for inclusion. The World Health Organization [1] defines “older adults” as 60 years or older, hence our decision to set the age threshold for care recipients at >60 years. Studies will be included if the mean study population age is care recipients who are 60 years or above or if the study includes a subgroup analysis of carers to these individuals. If the study does not report the age of care recipients, the study will be included if it is narratively indicated that the carers are caregiving to older adults.
Information sources
When undertaking a systematic review, the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews cites MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL as essential databases to search [21]. As such, we conducted a search of these three databases, along with the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO, which are specialized databases with a related focus to the topic of this review. These five databases were accessed using the University of Alberta’s institutional license on May 5, 2026. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO were accessed using Ovid interface; CINAHL was accessed using EbscoHOST; and CENTRAL was accessed using the Cochrane Library interface.
Search
The search strategy for this systematic review was developed by the first author (SH) in consultation with a health sciences librarian at the University of Saskatchewan’s Leslie and Irene Dube Health Sciences Library (EL). Filters to retrieve studies related to the topic of this review were retrieved from the University of Alberta Library’s Health Sciences Search Filters collection [32]. This included the pre-prepared search filters for the older adult population, health professionals, and allied health professionals. Search filters for carers were adapted from a previous scoping review’s search strategy [13]. Search terms for communication or information sharing were initially identified using ChatGPT-4o [33] by querying “Create a single line Ovid search filter for communication or information sharing.” MeSH terms and other synonyms were then identified manually and added to the search line. The final search strategy was reviewed and approved by the health sciences librarian. A sample search strategy for MEDLINE (Ovid interface) is presented in Table 1. Our search strategy was conducted across the five databases on May 5, 2025. Search strategies for all five databases are provided in S3 File.
Study records
Data management.
Full citations of records were exported from the five databases as.RIS files and uploaded to Covidence review management software [25] for title and abstract screening and subsequent full text screening. Duplicates were removed using automation tools in Covidence, which has shown to have 99.6–100% specificity [34]. In total, there were 5448 records to be screened. Title and abstract screening are being conducted in alphabetical order (records sorted by title, instead of Covidence’s default “machine-learned relevance”) to manually identify any further duplicates. Subsequently, full texts of records that pass the title and abstract screening phase will be sought from the University of Alberta’s library databases. After full text screening, studies that are included will undergo extraction using Covidence Extraction 2.0, a tool which is “best suited for non-intervention reviews with a customizable structure” [38].
Selection process.
Titles and abstracts of studies retrieved using the aforementioned search strategy are currently undergoing dual screening (two people screening each record). Dual screening is recommended over a single-screening process, as up to 13% of studies can be missed with only one screener [35]. Before initiating the screening process, screeners KB, CF, and ZL were invited to individual Covidence files that contained the first 50 records from the MEDLINE database. SH screened these 50 titles and abstracts with KB, CF, and ZL to ensure there was an understanding of the screening criteria. Our Cohen’s Kappa values were 0.2674, 0.5136, and 0.1131 respectively, which indicates an initial low agreement [36]. However, the actual total number of conflicts was between 6 and 8, and the opportunity for a higher Kappa was limited because this was a pilot process of only 50 studies. Due to this pilot screening process, we were able to discuss and scrutinize areas for this low agreement, thus supporting our screening process to have higher inter-rater reliability going forward.
Now, using Covidence, all titles and abstracts are being screened by the lead author (SH) and one of the other screeners (KB, CF, or ZL). Conflicts that arise at the title and abstract screening phase will be resolved through discussions. Conflicts that cannot be definitively resolved in discussion between screeners will be resolved by the senior supervising author (HMO). Subsequently, all full text papers will be screened by SH and another screener. Any conflicts arising at this stage over the eligibility of studies will be resolved in the same manner as previously described. In instances where multiple articles report similar results from the same data set, we will use the part of the PRISMA diagram template where you can identify that there are additional reports coming from “X” studies (e.g., Studies included in review: n = 15; Reports of included studies: n = 16). We will also use CitationChaser online software [37] to screen reference lists and citing articles of studies that are included after the first complete round of title/abstract and full text screening. Instructions for the screening process and inclusion forms for the full texts are provided in S2 File.
Data collection process
We will use the Covidence Extraction 2.0 template [25] for data extraction. We will pilot this template with team members participating in the extraction process. Each participating team member will extract data from three studies as a test of understanding, to be subsequently reviewed by the lead author (SH). Once understanding of the extraction process is confirmed, the team will divide the included records to extract data. SH will review extraction conducted by other team members. Data will be extracted from included articles by one team member independently. All extracted items will be reviewed and extraction items within exported.CSV tables will be “cleaned” by SH to confirm accuracy. We will contact corresponding authors of included articles for any missing details or extraction items not reported within the original article.
Data items
Data items to be extracted from included records include general and administrative information; characteristics of both the carer participants and their care recipients; characteristics of healthcare professional participants; study characteristics; and key study findings (e.g., themes or categories of qualitative data). Rationale for each data item and tentative instructions for extraction are presented in Table 2. Furthermore, entire Findings sections from included articles will be extracted into separate documents and imported into NVivo 14 [38] for qualitative data analysis.
Risk of bias in individual studies
For included records, we will use the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research [39], which is recommended for use in qualitative systematic reviews [18]. Two authors (SH and KB/CF/ZL) will complete a critical appraisal using the JBI checklist and we will engage in discussions to ensure consensus is met. Our critical appraisal results will be reported narratively and provided in a Supplementary File with the completed review.
Synthesis
This review will use qualitative meta-aggregation and meta-summary to synthesize the included studies’ findings. Meta-aggregation is a structured method aligned with conventional systematic review standards, where the reviewer avoids re-interpretation of the original qualitative data and instead collates findings as reported by the primary authors [18]. In this approach, commonalities and differences across studies are identified, and primary study findings are first grouped into thematic categories, then further distilled into synthesized conclusions that directly address the review question [18]. Qualitative meta-summary is a complementary technique to add a quantitative dimension to qualitative synthesis [32]. It involves the systematic extraction, grouping, and formatting of qualitative findings, followed by calculating frequency and intensity effect sizes to gauge the prevalence of each finding across the included studies [19]. By integrating these two methods, the synthesis will produce a narrative of themes (meta-aggregation) and a quantitative indication of how widely each theme is supported across studies (meta-summary). All extracted qualitative findings will be imported into NVivo 14 [38] to facilitate the analysis. NVivo will be used to manage the data, support coding of text, and organize findings by source. Using NVivo’s functions, we will be able to efficiently group similar concepts and also track the number of sources (studies) associated with each code or category, which will aid in computing effect sizes for the meta-summary component.
Meta-aggregation.
Using NVivo, SH (in collaboration with the team) will qualitatively code the extracted findings using the method of content analysis [40]. Each discrete finding or meaningful unit of text will be assigned one or more descriptive codes that capture its essence [18]. This coding is primarily inductive and data driven [40]. Codes will reflect concepts or issues reported in the information sharing experiences of carers and HCPs (e.g., “communication barriers” or “trust building”). Similar or duplicate findings from different studies will be given the same code. After open coding, the resulting codes will be examined for patterns and overlap. Codes that share a similar meaning or address a common facet of information sharing will be grouped into higher-order categories. Once the categories are finalized, we will synthesize them to generate overarching review findings. This involves translating each category into a coherent synthesized finding as a narrative statement that conveys the combined insight of all findings in that category. The synthesis will aggregate the evidence. Multiple similar findings will be condensed into a smaller number of higher-level conclusions. This progressive reduction (from many findings to a moderate number of categories, to a concise set of synthesized findings) is characteristic of meta-aggregation [18].
Meta-summary.
The meta-summary approach will allow us to quantify the prominence of each theme using two types of effect sizes for the findings: frequency effect size and intensity effect size [19]. Effect size calculations will be facilitated by the querying functions in NVivo 14 [38] by obtaining the number of sources coded at each node (for frequency) and the number of coded references per source (for intensity). Considering this systematic review is a qualitative synthesis, this quantitative supplementation does not denote statistical significance, but it helps convey how robust or widespread each finding is across the dataset.
Frequency effect size. For each thematic category, we will determine how many of the included studies reported that finding. The frequency effect size is calculated as the percentage of studies that contain a given finding [19]. For example, if 4 out of 20 studies in our review describe a particular issue in information sharing, the frequency effect size for that issue would be 20%. A higher frequency effect size indicates that a theme is more widely reported across the evidence base, suggesting it is a more prevalent or common experience [19]. Conversely, a low frequency (e.g., a theme appearing in only one or two studies) may point to a more unique or context-specific finding [19]. Following recommendations by Sandelowski et al. [41], we may use a cut-off (such as > 10% or > 20% frequency) to highlight particularly common findings, ensuring that our discussion focuses on the most salient themes while still noting less frequent insights for comprehensiveness.
Intensity effect size. We will also compute intensity effect sizes to understand each included study’s contribution to the overall breadth of findings. The intensity effect size for a given study is the percentage of all extracted findings that came from that study [19]. For instance, if a particular study contributed 5 out of a total of 20 distinct findings identified across all studies, that study’s intensity effect size would be about 25%. This measure helps identify if some studies are especially rich in relevant data (contributing many findings) or if the findings are more evenly distributed [19]. The intensity effect provides context on the weight of evidence each study carries in the synthesis [42].
Review timeline
We ran our search strategy on May 5, 2025, and title and abstract screening of 5448 records in Covidence is approximately 30% complete as of January 20, 2026, with 46 full texts currently waiting to be screened at the next stage. Based on this measure, we are projecting approximately 150 full texts to review after title and abstract screening is complete. We expect title and abstract screening to be completed by January 30, 2026. Subsequently, we expect full text screening and extraction to be completed by March 30, 2026. Our analysis and final report are planned to be completed by May 31, 2026.
Discussion
We anticipate that the results of this systematic review will inform future research efforts by identifying barriers and facilitators to information sharing between carers of older adults and the HCPs. Findings from this systematic review will also help to inform the development of future studies to co-design information sharing interventions for older adults and their carers. The knowledge translation strategy for this review will include presenting an abstract for the review at national and international conferences focusing on the care and wellbeing of older adults. Translating the knowledge collated from this review will draw attention to the information needs of family and friend carers, who are essential to the healthcare landscape in the context of an aging population. Ultimately, this systematic review is an important step toward improving carer engagement, satisfaction, and preparedness, thereby contributing to more patient-centered, efficient, and effective care for older adults.
Supporting information
S2 File. Title & Abstract Screening Instructions.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331717.s002
(PDF)
S3 File. Search Strategies from All Databases Searched.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0331717.s003
(DOCX)
Acknowledgments
The lead author would like to acknowledge Fernanda Fengler Dal Pizzol, RN, PhD(c), who provided invaluable support, guidance, and encouragement in the planning of this systematic review. As well, thank you to Erin Langman, a health sciences librarian at the University of Saskatchewan, who assisted in reviewing this protocol.
References
- 1.
World Health Organization. Decade of healthy ageing: Baseline report. World Health Organization. 2020. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240017900
- 2. Campbell-Enns HJ, Bornstein S, Hutchings VMM, Janzen M, Kampen M, O’Brien K, et al. The experiences and needs of unpaid family caregivers for persons living with dementia in rural settings: A qualitative systematic review. PLoS One. 2023;18(6):e0286548. pmid:37315078
- 3. Peacock S, Bayly M, Fletcher-Hildebrand S, Gibson K, MacRae R, Jack-Waugh A, et al. Championing dementia education: adapting an effective scottish dementia education program for Canadian acute health care providers. Can J Aging. 2023;42(1):165–76. pmid:36352769
- 4. Dovi E, Bier J-C, Fantini-Hauwel C. Evolution of lived experience of dementia caregivers after a psycho-educational group: an interpretative phenomenological analysis. Scand J Caring Sci. 2021;35(4):1134–42. pmid:33164253
- 5. Elliott KJ, Stirling CM, Martin AJ, Robinson AL, Scott JL. Coproduction for sustainability: seeking the perspectives of informal dementia carers’ on capacity building for community services. Journal Community Psychology. 2017;45(2):267–82.
- 6. Grässel E, Trilling A, Donath C, Luttenberger K. Support groups for dementia caregivers--predictors for utilisation and expected quality from a family caregiver’s point of view: a questionnaire survey part I*. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10:219. pmid:20667092
- 7. Hirakawa Y, Kuzuya M, Enoki H, Uemura K. Information needs and sources of family caregivers of home elderly patients. Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2011;52(2):202–5. pmid:20399514
- 8. Lamontagne M-E, Richards C, Azzaria L, Rosa-Goulet M, Clément L, Pelletier F. Perspective of patients and caregivers about stroke rehabilitation: the Quebec experience. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2019;26(1):39–48. pmid:30320537
- 9. Sinfield P, Baker R, Ali S, Richardson A. The needs of carers of men with prostate cancer and barriers and enablers to meeting them: a qualitative study in England. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2012;21(4):527–34. pmid:22416793
- 10. Lerum SV, Solbrække KN, Frich JC. Family caregivers’ accounts of caring for a family member with motor neurone disease in Norway: a qualitative study. BMC Palliat Care. 2016;15:22. pmid:26911713
- 11. Wingham J, Frost J, Britten N, Jolly K, Greaves C, Abraham C, et al. Needs of caregivers in heart failure management: A qualitative study. Chronic Illn. 2015;11(4):304–19. pmid:25795144
- 12. Faulks K. Experiences of information sharing between providers for patients aged 45 and over, 2016. Int J Integr Care. 2021;20(3):177.
- 13. Hall S, Rohatinsky N, Holtslander L, Peacock S. Caregivers to older adults require support: A scoping review of their priorities. Health Soc Care Community. 2022;30(6):e3789–809. pmid:36251430
- 14. Morrow EM, Nicholson C. Carer engagement in the hospital care of older people: an integrative literature review. Int J Older People Nurs. 2016;11(4):298–314. pmid:26916956
- 15. Basta A, Mikhael M, Kansara B, Hume E, Nguyen OT, Reblin M, et al. Pre-Surgical Education and Discharge Planning for Head and Neck Cancer: A Qualitative Study of Patient and Caregiver Perspectives. Cancer Control. 2025;32. pmid:40228315
- 16. Leone C, Winterton R, Chisholm M, Blackberry I. Understanding the role of agency in the navigation of regional dementia care and support service pathways. Dementia (London). 2025;24(3):368–87. pmid:39245850
- 17. Zhou Y, Wang A, Braybrook D, Ellis-Smith C, Feng H, Gong N, et al. What are the barriers and facilitators to advance care planning with older people in long-term care facilities? A qualitative study. J Clin Nurs. 2024. pmid:38379365
- 18. Lockwood C, Munn Z, Porritt K. Qualitative research synthesis: methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2015;13(3):179–87. pmid:26262565
- 19.
Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. Springer. 2007.
- 20. Amog K, Pham B, Courvoisier M, Mak M, Booth A, Godfrey C, et al. The web-based “Right Review” tool asks reviewers simple questions to suggest methods from 41 knowledge synthesis methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;147:42–51. pmid:35314349
- 21.
Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2 ed. Wiley-Blackwell. 2019.
- 22. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. pmid:33782057
- 23. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1. pmid:25554246
- 24. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647. pmid:25555855
- 25.
Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence systematic review software. 2024. Retrieved January 12, 2024 from http://www.covidence.org/
- 26.
DeepL. DeepL Translate: The world’s most accurate translator. DeepL. 2025. Retrieved May 6, 2025 from https://www.deepl.com/en/translator
- 27.
Carers Canada. About Us. Canadian Home Care Association. 2025. Retrieved April 23, 2024 from https://www.carerscanada.ca/about-us/
- 28. Hermanns M, Mastel-Smith B. Caregiving: A Qualitative Concept Analysis. TQR. 2015.
- 29. Holen-Rabbersvik E, Thygesen E, Eikebrokk TR, Fensli RW, Slettebø Å. Barriers to exchanging healthcare information in inter-municipal healthcare services: a qualitative case study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018;18(1):92. pmid:30404630
- 30. Asan O, Montague E. Technology-mediated information sharing between patients and clinicians in primary care encounters. Behav Inf Technol. 2014;33(3):259–70. pmid:26451062
- 31. Quigley L, Lacombe-Duncan A, Adams S, Hepburn CM, Cohen E. A qualitative analysis of information sharing for children with medical complexity within and across health care organizations. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14:283. pmid:24981205
- 32.
University of Alberta Library. Health Sciences Search Filters. 2024. Retrieved January 10, 2024 from https://guides.library.ualberta.ca/health-sciences-search-filters/home
- 33.
OpenAI. ChatGPT-4o. 2024. https://chatgpt.com/
- 34. McKeown S, Mir ZM. Considerations for conducting systematic reviews: evaluating the performance of different methods for de-duplicating references. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):38. pmid:33485394
- 35. Waffenschmidt S, Knelangen M, Sieben W, Bühn S, Pieper D. Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):132. pmid:31253092
- 36. McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochem Med. 2012;:276–82.
- 37. Haddaway NR, Grainger MJ, Gray CT. Citationchaser: A tool for transparent and efficient forward and backward citation chasing in systematic searching. Res Synth Methods. 2022;13(4):533–45. pmid:35472127
- 38.
Lumivero. QSR NVivo 14 Qualitative Data Analysis Software. 2023.
- 39.
Joanna Briggs Institute. Checklist for qualitative research: Critical appraisal tools for use in JBI systematic reviews. https://jbi.global/sites/default/files/2020-08/Checklist_for_Qualitative_Research.pdf#page=2.06
- 40. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277–88. pmid:16204405
- 41. Sandelowski M, Barroso J, Voils CI. Using qualitative metasummary to synthesize qualitative and quantitative descriptive findings. Res Nurs Health. 2007;30(1):99–111. pmid:17243111
- 42. Ferguson C, William S, Allida S, Macdonald PS, Kilov G, Chow CK, et al. A qualitative exploration of the educational needs of people living with heart failure: BANDAIDD-Explore study. PLoS One. 2025;20(2):e0314059. pmid:39919057