What are the priorities for research of older people living in their own home, including those living with frailty? A systematic review and content analysis of studies reporting older people's priorities and unmet needs.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence regarding the needs of older people, including those living with frailty, to inform research priority setting. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to identify the range of research priorities of community-dwelling older people living in their own home, including those living with frailty. METHODS: Included studies were from economically developed countries and designed to identify the priorities for research or unmet needs of community-dwelling older people. Studies were excluded if they described priorities relating to specific health conditions. Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL were searched (January 2010-June 2022), alongside grey literature. Study quality was assessed, but studies were not excluded on the basis of quality. A bespoke data extraction form was used and content analysis undertaken to synthesise findings. RESULTS: Seventy-five reports were included. Seven explicitly aimed to identify the priorities or unmet needs of frail older people; 68 did not specify frailty as a characteristic. Study designs varied, including priority setting exercises, surveys, interviews, focus groups and literature reviews. Identified priorities and unmet needs were organised into themes: prevention and management, improving health and care service provision, improving daily life, meeting carers' needs and planning ahead. DISCUSSION: Many priority areas were raised by older people, carers and health/care professionals, but few were identified explicitly by/for frail older people. An overarching need was identified for tailored, collaborative provision of care and support. CONCLUSION: Review findings provide a valuable resource for researchers and health/care staff wishing to focus their research or service provision on areas of importance for older people.

Mapping review of pain management programmes and psychological therapies for community-dwelling older people living with pain.

PURPOSE: Persistent pain is common in older people and people living with frailty. Pain or the impact of pain on everyday life is potentially modifiable. We sought to map research evidence and information from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pain management programmes and psychological therapies targeting community-dwelling older people, and explore appropriate strategies and interventions for managing or reducing the negative impact of pain for older people, particularly those with frailty. METHOD: A mapping review of pain management programmes and psychological therapies for community-dwelling older people living with chronic pain. We searched for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and for individual randomised controlled trials and extracted data from eligible studies. RESULTS: Searches resulted in 3419 systematic review records and 746 RCT records from which there were 33 eligible interventions identified in 31 eligible RCTs (48 reports). Broad aims of the interventions were to: improve physical, psychological, or social functioning; adjust the effects or sensation of pain psychologically; enhance self-care with self-management skills or knowledge. Common mechanisms of change proposed were self-efficacy enhanced by self-management tasks and skills, using positive psychological skills or refocusing attention to improve responses to pain, and practising physical exercises to improve physiological well-being and reduce restrictions from pain. Content of interventions included: skills training and activity management, education, and physical exercise. Interventions were delivered in person or remotely to individuals or in groups, typically in 1-2 sessions weekly over 5-12 weeks. CONCLUSION: All the evaluated interventions appeared to show potential to provide some benefits to older people. None of the included studies assessed frailty. However, some of the included interventions appear appropriate for community-dwelling older people living with both frailty and pain.

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 systematic review and network meta-analysis.

Background: Sustaining independence is important for older people, but there is insufficient guidance about which community health and care services to implement. Objectives: To synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of community services to sustain independence for older people grouped according to their intervention components, and to examine if frailty moderates the effect. Review design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eligibility criteria: Studies: Randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised controlled trials. Participants: Older people (mean age 65+) living at home. Interventions: community-based complex interventions for sustaining independence. Comparators: usual care, placebo or another complex intervention. Main outcomes: Living at home, instrumental activities of daily living, personal activities of daily living, care-home placement and service/economic outcomes at 1 year. Data sources: We searched MEDLINE (1946-), Embase (1947-), CINAHL (1972-), PsycINFO (1806-), CENTRAL and trial registries from inception to August 2021, without restrictions, and scanned reference lists. Review methods: Interventions were coded, summarised and grouped. Study populations were classified by frailty. A random-effects network meta-analysis was used. We assessed trial-result risk of bias (Cochrane RoB 2), network meta-analysis inconsistency and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation for network meta-analysis). Results: We included 129 studies (74,946 participants). Nineteen intervention components, including 'multifactorial-action' (multidomain assessment and management/individualised care planning), were identified in 63 combinations. The following results were of low certainty unless otherwise stated. For living at home, compared to no intervention/placebo, evidence favoured: multifactorial-action and review with medication-review (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.59; moderate certainty) multifactorial-action with medication-review (odds ratio 2.55, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 10.60) cognitive training, medication-review, nutrition and exercise (odds ratio 1.93, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 4.77) and activities of daily living training, nutrition and exercise (odds ratio 1.79, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 4.76). Four intervention combinations may reduce living at home. For instrumental activities of daily living, evidence favoured multifactorial-action and 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. For personal activities of daily living, evidence favoured exercise, multifactorial-action and review with medication-review and self-management (standardised mean difference 0.16, 95% confidence interval -0.51 to 0.82). For homecare recipients, evidence favoured the addition of multifactorial-action and review with medication-review (standardised mean difference 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.88). Care-home placement and service/economic findings were inconclusive. Limitations: High risk of bias in most results 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. Studies were diverse; findings may not apply to all contexts. Conclusions: Findings for the many intervention combinations evaluated were largely small and uncertain. However, the combinations most likely to sustain independence include multifactorial-action, medication-review and ongoing review of patients. Some combinations may reduce independence. Future work: Further research is required to explore mechanisms of action and interaction with context. Different methods for evidence synthesis may illuminate further. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019162195. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128862) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 48. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Due to a lack of robust evidence, the benefits and risks of most types of community services for older people are unclear. Individualised care planning, where medication is adjusted and there are regular follow-ups, probably helps people stay living at home. There are many kinds of community services for older people. For example, in some services, everyone is given exercise and dietary advice or an individualised care plan. These often aim to help older people age independently. Maintaining independence is important in later life. We wanted to find out which community services work best: to help people stay living at home, and to do day-to-day activities independently. We reviewed findings from previous studies that have tested different community services for older people. We combined these findings and compared different types of service with one another. We rated our confidence in the evidence. We found 129 studies with 74,946 people. We found 63 different kinds of service have been studied. The studies were carried out in diverse populations around the world. Individualised care planning, where medication is adjusted and there are regular follow-ups, may help people age independently. It probably increases the chance of staying at home slightly. It may also help with doing day-to-day activities very slightly. Exercise and dietary advice may also help people stay living at home. However, there was some evidence that some services may reduce independence. We do not know what effect most services have. We generally had little confidence in the evidence because studies were small, and information was missing. The evidence is up to date to August 2021.

Effects of computerised clinical decision support systems (CDSS) on nursing and allied health professional performance and patient outcomes: a systematic review of experimental and observational studies.

OBJECTIVE: Computerised clinical decision support systems (CDSS) are an increasingly important part of nurse and allied health professional (AHP) roles in delivering healthcare. The impact of these technologies on these health professionals' performance and patient outcomes has not been systematically reviewed. We aimed to conduct a systematic review to investigate this. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The following bibliographic databases and grey literature sources were searched by an experienced Information Professional for published and unpublished research from inception to February 2021 without language restrictions: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase Classic+Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), HMIC (Ovid), AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine) (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (Wiley), Social Sciences Citation Index Expanded (Clarivate), ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Abstracts & Index, ProQuest ASSIA (Applied Social Science Index and Abstract), Clinical Trials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP), Health Services Research Projects in Progress (HSRProj), OpenClinical(www.OpenClinical.org), OpenGrey (www.opengrey.eu), Health.IT.gov, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (www.ahrq.gov). Any comparative research studies comparing CDSS with usual care were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: A total of 36 106 non-duplicate records were identified. Of 35 included studies: 28 were randomised trials, three controlled-before-and-after studies, three interrupted-time-series and one non-randomised trial. There were ~1318 health professionals and ~67 595 patient participants in the studies. Most studies focused on nurse decision-makers (71%) or paramedics (5.7%). CDSS as a standalone Personal Computer/LAPTOP-technology was a feature of 88.7% of the studies; only 8.6% of the studies involved 'smart' mobile/handheld-technology. DISCUSSION: CDSS impacted 38% of the outcome measures used positively. Care processes were better in 47% of the measures adopted; examples included, nurses' adherence to hand disinfection guidance, insulin dosing, on-time blood sampling and documenting care. Patient care outcomes in 40.7% of indicators were better; examples included, lower numbers of falls and pressure ulcers, better glycaemic control, screening of malnutrition and obesity and triaging appropriateness. CONCLUSION: CDSS may have a positive impact on selected aspects of nurses' and AHPs' performance and care outcomes. However, comparative research is generally low quality, with a wide range of heterogeneous outcomes. After more than 13 years of synthesised research into CDSS in healthcare professions other than medicine, the need for better quality evaluative research remains as pressing.