RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Fall prevention is a global health priority. Strength and balance exercise programmes are effective at reducing falls. Emerging literature suggests dance is an enjoyable and sociable form of exercise. However, there is little evidence that dance reduces fall incidence. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis examining effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of dance for falls prevention in older adults. Five databases were searched with no restrictions on publication date or intervention settings. Risk of bias was assessed using variants of Cochrane Risk of bias tools, Mixed-Methods Appraisal and Drummond checklist as appropriate. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Forty-one studies were included (19 RCTs, 13 quasi-experimental, two mixed-method, seven observational studies, 2,451 participants). Five types of dance interventions were identified: ballroom and Latin dance, dance exercise, cultural dance, dance therapy, and low-impact dance. Meta-analysis was only possible for functional outcome measures: Timed-Up-and-Go (dance versus usual care, mean difference (MD) = 1.36; 95% CI -3.57 to 0.85), Sit-to-Stand (dance versus exercise MD = -0.85; 95% CI -2.64 to 0.93: dance versus education MD = -1.64; 95% CI -4.12 to 0.85), Berg Balance Scale (dance versus usual care MD = 0.61; 95% CI -4.26 to 5.47). There was unexplained variance in effects and no significant differences between intervention and control groups. Overall, certainty of evidence was very low; we are uncertain about the effect of dance interventions in reducing falls. CONCLUSIONS: There is very low certainty evidence for dance as an alternative to strength and balance training if the aim is to prevent falls. No robust evidence on the cost-effectiveness of dance interventions for the prevention of falls was found. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42022382908.
Asunto(s)
Accidentes por Caídas , Análisis Costo-Beneficio , Danzaterapia , Baile , Humanos , Accidentes por Caídas/prevención & control , Anciano , Danzaterapia/métodos , Masculino , Femenino , Equilibrio Postural , Resultado del Tratamiento , Factores de Riesgo , Factores de Edad , Anciano de 80 o más AñosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Sexual health throughout the life course is increasingly recognised as important to maintaining one's overall health, wellbeing, and relationships. We aimed to provide an overview of the evidence on sexual health needs and sexual health promotion in later life. METHODS: We undertook two rapid reviews, drawing on systematic review evidence. Searches were conducted in Epistemonikos. Studies were eligible if they reported evidence about the sexual health needs of, or sexual health promotion interventions for, people aged 50+ years. Evidence was quality assessed and summarised in a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Fifteen systematic reviews were included in Review 1 (sexual health needs) and 12 in Review 2 (interventions). Key concerns and needs of older adults included the impacts of cultural stigma/misperceptions, barriers to sexual expression, and a need for tailored support in a welcoming environment. Key concerns and needs of health and social care professionals included mixed attitudes towards and knowledge of later-life sexuality and a need for more training and education. Approaches to promoting sexual health in later life included training and workshops for care home professionals, education for older people at risk of/living with HIV, and interventions to address sexual health-related symptoms of menopause. Gaps in the evidence from current reviews and methodological issues in primary studies were identified. CONCLUSION: Older people have specific needs relating to their sexual health. Health and social care professionals working with older people may benefit from education/training around sexuality in later life. Evidence on effective interventions and strategies is limited.
Asunto(s)
Salud Sexual , Femenino , Humanos , Anciano , Promoción de la Salud , Apoyo SocialRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Common mental health disorders are especially prevalent among people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. Non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions, such as social prescribing and collaborative care, provide alternatives to pharmaceutical treatments for common mental health disorders, but little is known about the impact of these interventions for patients who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. AIM: To synthesise evidence for the effects of non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions on common mental health disorders and associated socioeconomic inequalities. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review of quantitative primary studies published in English and undertaken in high-income countries. METHOD: Six bibliographic databases were searched and additional grey literature sources screened. Data were extracted onto a standardised proforma and quality assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project tool. Data were synthesised narratively and effect direction plots were produced for each outcome. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were included. Social-prescribing interventions were evaluated in 10 studies, collaborative care in two studies, and a new model of care in one study. Positive results (based on effect direction) were reported for the impact of the interventions on wellbeing in groups that were socioeconomically deprived. Inconsistent (mainly positive) results were reported for anxiety and depression. One study reported that people from the group with least deprivation, compared with the group with greatest deprivation, benefitted most from these interventions. Overall, study quality was weak. CONCLUSION: Targeting non-pharmaceutical primary care interventions at areas of socioeconomic deprivation may help to reduce inequalities in mental health outcomes. However, only tentative conclusions can be drawn from the evidence in this review and more-robust research is required.
Asunto(s)
Ansiedad , Salud Mental , Humanos , Ansiedad/terapia , Renta , Trastornos de Ansiedad , Atención Primaria de SaludRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To identify prognostic models for melanoma survival, recurrence and metastasis among American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I and II patients postsurgery; and evaluate model performance, including overall survival (OS) prediction. DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index and grey literature sources including cancer and guideline websites from 2000 to September 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Included studies on risk prediction models for stage I and II melanoma in adults ≥18 years. Outcomes included OS, recurrence, metastases and model performance. No language or country of publication restrictions were applied. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two pairs of reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies checklist and the Prediction study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Heterogeneous predictors prevented statistical synthesis. RESULTS: From 28 967 records, 15 studies reporting 20 models were included; 8 (stage I), 2 (stage II), 7 (stages I-II) and 7 (stages not reported), but were clearly applicable to early stages. Clinicopathological predictors per model ranged from 3-10. The most common were: ulceration, Breslow thickness/depth, sociodemographic status and site. Where reported, discriminatory values were ≥0.7. Calibration measures showed good matches between predicted and observed rates. None of the studies assessed clinical usefulness of the models. Risk of bias was high in eight models, unclear in nine and low in three. Seven models were internally and externally cross-validated, six models were externally validated and eight models were internally validated. CONCLUSIONS: All models are effective in their predictive performance, however the low quality of the evidence raises concern as to whether current follow-up recommendations following surgical treatment is adequate. Future models should incorporate biomarkers for improved accuracy. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018086784.