Development of the Community-based complex Interventions to sustain Independence in Older People (CII-OP) typology: a qualitative synthesis of interventions in randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Community-based services to sustain independence for older people have varying configurations. A typology of these interventions would improve service provision and research by providing conceptual clarity and enabling the identification of effective configurations. We aimed to produce such a typology. METHOD: We developed our typology by qualitatively synthesising community-based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people, evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in four stages: (i) systematically identifying relevant RCTs; (ii) extracting descriptions of interventions (including control) using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication; (iii) generating categories of key intervention features and (iv) grouping the interventions based on these categories. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019162195. RESULTS: Our search identified 129 RCTs involving 266 intervention arms. The Community-based complex Interventions to sustain Independence in Older People (CII-OP) typology comprises 14 action components and 5 tailoring components. Action components include procedures for treating patients or otherwise intended to directly improve their outcomes; regular examples include formal homecare; physical exercise; health education; activities of daily living training; providing aids and adaptations and nutritional support. Tailoring components involve a process that may result in care planning, with multiple action components being planned, recommended or prescribed. Multifactorial action from care planning was the most common tailoring component. It involves individualised, multidomain assessment and management, as in comprehensive geriatric assessment. Sixty-three different intervention types (combinations) were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Our typology provides an empirical basis for service planning and evidence synthesis. We recommend better reporting about organisational aspects of interventions and usual care.

Community based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of community based complex interventions, grouped according to their intervention components, to sustain independence for older people. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 9 August 2021 and reference lists of included studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials or cluster randomised controlled trials with ≥24 weeks' follow-up studying community based complex interventions for sustaining independence in older people (mean age ≥65 years) living at home, with usual care, placebo, or another complex intervention as comparators. MAIN OUTCOMES: Living at home, activities of daily living (personal/instrumental), care home placement, and service/economic outcomes at 12 months. DATA SYNTHESIS: Interventions were grouped according to a specifically developed typology. Random effects network meta-analysis estimated comparative effects; Cochrane's revised tool (RoB 2) structured risk of bias assessment. Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) network meta-analysis structured certainty assessment. RESULTS: The review included 129 studies (74 946 participants). Nineteen intervention components, including "multifactorial action from individualised care planning" (a process of multidomain assessment and management leading to tailored actions), were identified in 63 combinations. For living at home, compared with no intervention/placebo, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review and regular follow-ups (routine review) (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.59; moderate certainty); multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review without regular follow-ups (2.55, 0.61 to 10.60; low certainty); combined cognitive training, medication review, nutritional support, and exercise (1.93, 0.79 to 4.77; low certainty); and combined activities of daily living training, nutritional support, and exercise (1.79, 0.67 to 4.76; low certainty). Risk screening or the addition of education and self-management strategies to multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review may reduce odds of living at home. For instrumental activities of daily living, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (standardised mean difference 0.11, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.21; moderate certainty). Two interventions may reduce instrumental activities of daily living: combined activities of daily living training, aids, and exercise; and combined activities of daily living training, aids, education, exercise, and multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies. For personal activities of daily living, evidence favoured combined exercise, multifactorial action from individualised care planning, and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies (0.16, -0.51 to 0.82; low certainty). For homecare recipients, evidence favoured addition of multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (0.60, 0.32 to 0.88; low certainty). High risk of bias and imprecise estimates meant that most evidence was low or very low certainty. Few studies contributed to each comparison, impeding evaluation of inconsistency and frailty. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention most likely to sustain independence is individualised care planning including medicines optimisation and regular follow-up reviews resulting in multifactorial action. Homecare recipients may particularly benefit from this intervention. Unexpectedly, some combinations may reduce independence. Further research is needed to investigate which combinations of interventions work best for different participants and contexts. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019162195.

Community-based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people, stratified by frailty: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Maintaining independence is a primary goal of community health and care services for older people, but there is currently insufficient guidance about which services to implement. Therefore, we aim to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of community-based complex interventions to sustain independence for older people, including the effect of frailty, and group interventions to identify the best configurations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of community-based complex interventions to sustain independence for older people living at home (mean age ≥65 years), compared with usual care or another complex intervention. We will search MEDLINE (1946 to September 2020), Embase (1947 to September 2020), CINAHL (1981 to September 2020), PsycINFO (1806 to September 2020), CENTRAL and clinical trial registries from inception to September 2020, without date/language restrictions, and scan included papers' reference lists. Main outcomes were: living at home, activities of daily living (basic/instrumental), home-care services usage, hospitalisation, care home admission, costs and cost effectiveness. Additional outcomes were: health status, depression, loneliness, falls and mortality. Interventions will be coded, summarised and grouped. An NMA using a multivariate random-effects model for each outcome separately will determine the relative effects of different complex interventions. For each outcome, we will produce summary effect estimates for each pair of treatments in the network, with 95% CI, ranking plots and measures, and the borrowing of strength statistic. Inconsistency will be examined using a 'design-by-treatment interaction' model. We will assess risk of bias (Cochrane tool V.2) and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation for NMA approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research will use aggregated, anonymised, published data. Findings will be reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. They will be disseminated to policy-makers, commissioners and providers, and via conferences and scientific journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019162195.

Effect of remote ischaemic preconditioning on walking in people with multiple sclerosis: double-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) is the exposure of body parts to brief periods of circulatory occlusion and reperfusion. Recent studies have also shown that RIPC can improve exercise performance in healthy individuals. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the effect of RIPC on walking in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: This was a double-blind randomised controlled clinical trial. We used three cycles of RIPC delivered by occluding the upper arm with a blood pressure (BP) cuff inflated to a pressure of 30 mm Hg above the systolic BP. In patients in the sham intervention group, the BP cuff was inflated only to 30 mm Hg below diastolic BP. Outcome measures included the Six-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), gait speed, the Borg rate of perceived exertion (RPE) scale, the tolerability of the RIPC using a Numerical Rating Scale for discomfort from 0 to 10, and adverse events. We identified responders meeting the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) established in the literature in each group. RESULTS: Seventy-five participants completed the study (RIPC: 38 and Sham: 37). The distance walked during the 6MWT improved by 1.9% in the sham group and 5.7% in the RIPC group (p=0.012). The number of responders meeting MCID criteria in the RIPC group was significantly greater compared with the sham intervention group. No serious adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION: Single cycle of RIPC resulted in immediate improvement in walking distances during 6MWT in people with MS. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT03153553.