Creating an Age-Friendly Environment in Farming - The Farmer's Yards Approach.

With demographic trends highlighting an inversion of the farming community age pyramid, with those aged 65 years and over constituting the fastest growing subgroup of the farming population globally, this article highlights a social initiative for older farmers called Farmer's Yards, embodying values, and aspirations pertinent to farmers in their later years, that is helping to create an age-friendly environment in farming in line with World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines. By providing older farmers with a platform for sustained social engagement and inclusion within the farming community, this social initiative aligns with principles promoting active and healthy aging, thereby contributing positively to their mental health and wellbeing in later life. In doing so, Farmer's Yards is helping to address recent calls by the European Commission for an increased emphasis on the delivery of creative mechanisms that enhance the quality of life of older farmers through social policy. The pilot phase of this social initiative outlined in this article, held in a Livestock Mart (Auction Market) setting in the west of Ireland, demonstrates how Farmer's Yards can strengthen Mart's long-standing position and reputation as centres of social activity within rural areas by helping older farmers maintain legitimate social connectedness, collegiality, and comradeship with their peers in advancing age in their respective regions, and in turn, combat social isolation and loneliness in later life. Recommendations for future research and on the expansion of Farmer's Yards are subsequently outlined.

Remote-delivered cardiac rehabilitation during COVID-19: a prospective cohort comparison of health-related quality of life outcomes and patient experiences.

AIMS: Enforced suspension and reduction of in-person cardiac rehabilitation (CR) services during the coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic restrictions required rapid implementation of remote delivery methods, thus enabling a cohort comparison of in-person vs. remote-delivered CR participants. This study aimed to examine the health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes and patient experiences comparing these delivery modes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Participants across four metropolitan CR sites receiving in-person (December 2019 to March 2020) or remote-delivered (April to October 2020) programmes were assessed for HRQL (Short Form-12) at CR entry and completion. A General Linear Model was used to adjust for baseline group differences and qualitative interviews to explore patient experiences. Participants (n = 194) had a mean age of 65.94 (SD 10.45) years, 80.9% males. Diagnoses included elective percutaneous coronary intervention (40.2%), myocardial infarction (33.5%), and coronary artery bypass grafting (26.3%). Remote-delivered CR wait times were shorter than in-person [median 14 (interquartile range, IQR 10-21) vs. 25 (IQR 16-38) days, P < 0.001], but participation by ethnic minorities was lower (13.6% vs. 35.2%, P < 0.001). Remote-delivered CR participants had equivalent benefits to in-person in all HRQL domains but more improvements than in-person in Mental Health, both domain [mean difference (MD) 3.56, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28, 5.82] and composite (MD 2.37, 95% CI 0.15, 4.58). From qualitative interviews (n = 16), patients valued in-person CR for direct exercise supervision and group interactions, and remote-delivered for convenience and flexibility (negotiable contact times). CONCLUSION: Remote-delivered CR implemented during COVID-19 had equivalent, sometimes better, HRQL outcomes than in-person, and shorter wait times. Participation by minority groups in remote-delivered modes are lower. Further research is needed to evaluate other patient outcomes.

Prevalence and seasonal variation of precipitants of heart failure hospitalization and risk of readmission.

AIMS: To determine the prevalence and seasonal variation in precipitants of heart failure (HF) hospitalization and the risk of subsequent HF hospitalizations. METHODS: We analysed the characteristics and outcomes of patients hospitalized with HF and enrolled in the Management of Cardiac Failure program in Sydney, Australia. Potential precipitants of HF hospitalization were identified, and Cox-regression analyses performed according to the precipitant. RESULTS: Among 6918 patients hospitalized with HF, 5384 (78%) had identified one or more precipitating factors leading to the hospitalization and 3648 (53%) had a single identifiable precipitant. Most precipitants were due to one or more of five prespecified causes - infection (n = 2014), ischemia (n = 1781), arrhythmia (n = 1724), medication related (n = 925) and diet non-compliance (n = 408). All precipitants were more common during winter (p < 0.001), especially infection related precipitants, of which 36% occurred during winter. Among patients with a single identifiable precipitant, one-year risk for HF readmission was lower when the precipitant was arrhythmia (16%) or infection (17%) than when the precipitant was ischemia (21%), dietary non-compliance (23%) or medication related (25%). The precipitant for HF rehospitalizations were more likely to be the same precipitant for the initial admission: infection vs no infection (HR 1.51, 95% CI 1.08-2.13), ischemia vs no ischemia (HR 2.79, 95% CI 1.83-4.25), arrhythmia vs no arrhythmia (HR 3.31, 95% CI 1.87-5.88) and medication related vs not medication related (HR 2.28, 95% CI 1.39-3.74). CONCLUSION: The precipitant of HF hospitalization influences the risk and precipitant of subsequent HF hospitalizations. Identifying and targeting interventions towards the precipitating factor may be an important strategy to prevent future HF hospitalizations.