Complex interventions for improving independent living and quality of life amongst community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: community-based complex interventions for older adults have a variety of names, including Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, but often share core components such as holistic needs assessment and care planning. OBJECTIVE: to summarise evidence for the components and effectiveness of community-based complex interventions for improving older adults' independent living and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: we searched nine databases and trial registries to February 2022 for randomised controlled trials comparing complex interventions to usual care. Primary outcomes included living at home and QoL. Secondary outcomes included mortality, hospitalisation, institutionalisation, cognitive function and functional status. We pooled data using risk ratios (RRs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: we included 50 trials of mostly moderate quality. Most reported using holistic assessment (94%) and care planning (90%). Twenty-seven (54%) involved multidisciplinary care, with 29.6% delivered mainly by primary care teams without geriatricians. Nurses were the most frequent care coordinators. Complex interventions increased the likelihood of living at home (RR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00-1.10; moderate-quality evidence) but did not affect QoL. Supported by high-quality evidence, they reduced mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.77-0.96), enhanced cognitive function (SMD 0.12; 95% CI 0.02-0.22) and improved instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs) (SMD 0.11; 95% CI 0.01-0.21) and combined basic/instrumental ADLs (SMD 0.08; 95% CI 0.03-0.13). CONCLUSIONS: complex interventions involving holistic assessment and care planning increased the chance of living at home, reduced mortality and improved cognitive function and some ADLs.

Measuring multimorbidity in research: Delphi consensus study.

Objective: To develop international consensus on the definition and measurement of multimorbidity in research. Design: Delphi consensus study. Setting: International consensus; data collected in three online rounds from participants between 30 November 2020 and 18 May 2021. Participants: Professionals interested in multimorbidity and people with long term conditions were recruited to professional and public panels. Results: 150 professional and 25 public participants completed the first survey round. Response rates for rounds 2/3 were 83%/92% for professionals and 88%/93% in the public panel, respectively. Across both panels, the consensus was that multimorbidity should be defined as two or more long term conditions. Complex multimorbidity was perceived to be a useful concept, but the panels were unable to agree on how to define it. Both panels agreed that conditions should be included in a multimorbidity measure if they were one or more of the following: currently active; permanent in their effects; requiring current treatment, care, or therapy; requiring surveillance; or relapsing-remitting conditions requiring ongoing care. Consensus was reached for 24 conditions to always include in multimorbidity measures, and 35 conditions to usually include unless a good reason not to existed. Simple counts were preferred for estimating prevalence and examining clustering or trajectories, and weighted measures were preferred for risk adjustment and outcome prediction. Conclusions: Previous multimorbidity research is limited by inconsistent definitions and approaches to measuring multimorbidity. This Delphi study identifies professional and public panel consensus guidance to facilitate consistency of definition and measurement, and to improve study comparability and reproducibility.