Effectiveness of dance interventions for falls prevention in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis.

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.

Practices of falls risk assessment and prevention in acute hospital settings: a realist investigation.

Background: Falls are the most common safety incident reported by acute hospitals. The National Institute of Health and Care Excellence recommends multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored interventions, but implementation is variable. Aim: To determine how and in what contexts multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored interventions are used in acute National Health Service hospitals in England. Design: Realist review and multisite case study. (1) Systematic searches to identify stakeholders' theories, tested using empirical data from primary studies. Review of falls prevention policies of acute Trusts. (2) Theory testing and refinement through observation, staff interviews (n = 50), patient and carer interviews (n = 31) and record review (n = 60). Setting: Three Trusts, one orthopaedic and one older person ward in each. Results: Seventy-eight studies were used for theory construction and 50 for theory testing. Four theories were explored. (1) Leadership: wards had falls link practitioners but authority to allocate resources for falls prevention resided with senior nurses. (2) Shared responsibility: a key falls prevention strategy was patient supervision. This fell to nursing staff, constraining the extent to which responsibility for falls prevention could be shared. (3) Facilitation: assessments were consistently documented but workload pressures could reduce this to a tick-box exercise. Assessment items varied. While individual patient risk factors were identified, patients were categorised as high or low risk to determine who should receive supervision. (4) Patient participation: nursing staff lacked time to explain to patients their falls risks or how to prevent themselves from falling, although other staff could do so. Sensitive communication could prevent patients taking actions that increase their risk of falling. Limitations: Within the realist review, we completed synthesis for only two theories. We could not access patient records before observations, preventing assessment of whether care plans were enacted. Conclusions: (1) Leadership: There should be a clear distinction between senior nurses' roles and falls link practitioners in relation to falls prevention; (2) shared responsibility: Trusts should consider how processes and systems, including the electronic health record, can be revised to better support a multidisciplinary approach, and alternatives to patient supervision should be considered; (3) facilitation: Trusts should consider how to reduce documentation burden and avoid tick-box responses, and ensure items included in the falls risk assessment tools align with guidance. Falls risk assessment tools and falls care plans should be presented as tools to support practice, rather than something to be audited; (4) patient participation: Trusts should consider how they can ensure patients receive individualised information about risks and preventing falls and provide staff with guidance on brief but sensitive ways to talk with patients to reduce the likelihood of actions that increase their risk of falling. Future work: (1) Development and evaluation of interventions to support multidisciplinary teams to undertake, and involve patients in, multifactorial falls risk assessment and selection and delivery of tailored interventions; (2) mixed method and economic evaluations of patient supervision; (3) evaluation of engagement support workers, volunteers and/or carers to support falls prevention. Research should include those with cognitive impairment and patients who do not speak English. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020184458. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR129488) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Many accidental falls by older people in hospitals could be avoided. There are guidelines to prevent falls, but some hospitals are better at following them than others. This study aimed to find out why. First, we looked at research and hospitals' falls policies for ideas about what stops falls. With advice from service users, we tested these ideas in four hospitals in England, watching how falls were prevented on wards for older people and people who need bone care, and talking to 50 staff, 28 patients and 3 carers. We found the following: Falls leadership: wards had staff called falls link practitioners who supported falls prevention, but senior nurses, not link practitioners, made the most important decisions. Sharing responsibility: patients with falls risks were monitored to try to stop falls. Because only nursing teams were always present to monitor patients, they had most responsibility for preventing falls. This limited sharing responsibility with other staff. Computer tools: nurses used computers to record prevention work, but high workloads could make this a 'tick-box' exercise. Computer tools reminded them to do this, although tools varied. Patients had individual falls plans, but they were also ranked more generally as high or low risk of falling, with 'high-risk' patients being monitored. Patient involvement: nursing staff did not have time to explain to patients how to prevent falls, but other staff could have such conversations. Many patients had problems like dementia and found it difficult to follow safety advice, although some could take steps to keep safe, with sensitive staff support. We need to involve patients, carers and different staff in falls prevention. Hospitals could develop computer systems to support this, think how to involve more ward staff, and provide guidance on helpful ways to talk with patients about falls.

A peer-volunteer led active ageing programme to prevent decline in physical function in older people at risk of mobility disability (Active, Connected, Engaged [ACE]): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The Active Connected Engaged [ACE] study is a multi-centre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group randomised controlled trial [RCT] with an internal pilot phase. The ACE study incorporates a multi-level mixed methods process evaluation including a systems mapping approach and an economic evaluation. ACE aims to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a peer-volunteer led active ageing intervention designed to support older adults at risk of mobility disability to become more physically and socially active within their communities and to reduce or reverse, the progression of functional limitations associated with ageing. METHODS/DESIGN: Community-dwelling, older adults aged 65 years and older (n = 515), at risk of mobility disability due to reduced lower limb physical functioning (Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB) score of 4-9 inclusive) will be recruited. Participants will be randomised to receive either a minimal control intervention or ACE, a 6-month programme underpinned by behaviour change theory, whereby peer volunteers are paired with participants and offer them individually tailored support to engage them in local physical and social activities to improve lower limb mobility and increase their physical activity. Outcome data will be collected at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months. The primary outcome analysis (difference in SPPB score at 18 months) will be undertaken blinded to group allocation. Primary comparative analyses will be on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis with due emphasis placed on confidence intervals. DISCUSSION: ACE is the largest, pragmatic, community-based randomised controlled trial in the UK to target this high-risk segment of the older population by mobilising community resources (peer volunteers). A programme that can successfully engage this population in sufficient activity to improve strength, coordination, balance and social connections would have a major impact on sustaining health and independence. ACE is also the first study of its kind to conduct a full economic and comprehensive process evaluation of this type of community-based intervention. If effective and cost-effective, the ACE intervention has strong potential to be implemented widely in the UK and elsewhere. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN17660493. Registered on 30 September 2021. Trial Sponsor: University of Birmingham, Contact: Dr Birgit Whitman, Head of Research Governance and Integrity; Email: researchgovernance@contacts.bham.ac.uk. Protocol Version 5 22/07/22.

Comparison of falls and cost-effectiveness of the group versus individually delivered Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) program: final results from the LiFE-is-LiFE non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: the individually delivered Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (LiFE) was shown to improve physical activity (PA) and reduce fall incidence, however being rather resource-consuming due to one-to-one delivery. A potentially less resource-intensive group format (gLiFE) was developed and compared against the original program, considering higher risk of falling due to possible PA enhancement. OBJECTIVE: to investigate non-inferiority in terms of PA-adjusted fall risk and cost-effectiveness of gLiFE at 12-month follow-up. DESIGN: single-blinded, randomised, multi-centre non-inferiority trial. SETTING: community. SUBJECTS: in total, 309 adults aged 70+ years at risk of or with history of falling; n = 153 in gLiFE, n = 156 in LiFE. METHODS: LiFE was delivered one-to-one at the participants' homes, gLiFE in a group. PA-adjusted fall risk was analysed using negative binomial regression to compare incidence rate ratios (IRR). Cost-effectiveness was presented by incremental cost-effectiveness ratios and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves, considering quality-adjusted life years, PA and falls as effect measures. Secondary analyses included PA (steps/day) and fall outcomes. RESULTS: non-inferiority was inconclusive (IRR 0.96; 95% confidence interval, CI 0.67; 1.37); intervention costs were lower for gLiFE, but cost-effectiveness was uncertain. gLiFE participants significantly increased PA (+1,090 steps/day; 95% CI 345 and 1.835) versus insignificant increase in LiFE (+569, 95% CI -31; 1,168). Number of falls and fallers were reduced in both formats. CONCLUSION: non-inferiority of gLiFE compared with LiFE was inconclusive after 12 months. Increases in PA were clinically relevant in both groups, although nearly twice as high in gLiFE. Despite lower intervention costs of gLiFE, it was not clearly superior in terms of cost-effectiveness.

Using Smartphone TechnolOGy to Support an EffecTive Home ExeRcise Intervention to Prevent Falls amongst Community-Dwelling Older Adults: The TOGETHER Feasibility RCT.

INTRODUCTION: Falls have major implications for quality of life, independence, and cost of health services. Strength and balance training has been found to be effective in reducing the rate/risk of falls, as long as there is adequate fidelity to the evidence-based programme. The aims of this study were to (1) assess the feasibility of using the "Motivate Me" and "My Activity Programme" interventions to support falls rehabilitation when delivered in practice and (2) assess study design and trial procedures for the evaluation of the intervention. METHODS: A two-arm pragmatic feasibility randomized controlled trial was conducted with five health service providers in the UK. Patients aged 50+ years eligible for a falls rehabilitation exercise programme from community services were recruited and received either (1) standard service with a smartphone for outcome measurement only or (2) standard service plus the "Motivate Me" and "My Activity Programme" apps. The primary outcome was feasibility of the intervention, study design, and procedures (including recruitment rate, adherence, and dropout). Outcome measures include balance, function, falls, strength, fear of falling, health-related quality of life, resource use, and adherence, measured at baseline, three-month, and six-month post-randomization. Blinded assessors collected the outcome measures. RESULTS: Twenty four patients were randomized to control group and 26 to intervention group, with a mean age of 77.6 (range 62-92) years. We recruited 37.5% of eligible participants across the five clinical sites. 77% in the intervention group completed their full exercise programme (including the use of the app). Response rates for outcome measures at 6 months were 77-80% across outcome measures, but this was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a mean 2.6 ± 1.9 point difference between groups in change in Berg balance score from baseline to 3 months and mean 4.4 ± 2.7 point difference from baseline to 6 months in favour of the intervention group. Less falls (1.8 ± 2.8 vs. 9.1 ± 32.6) and less injurious falls (0.1 ± 0.5 vs. 0.4 ± 0.6) in the intervention group and higher adherence scores at three (17.7 ± 6.8 vs. 13.1 ± 6.5) and 6 months (15.2 ± 7.8 vs. 14.9 ± 6.1). There were no related adverse events. Health professionals and patients had few technical issues with the apps. CONCLUSIONS: The motivational apps and trial procedures were feasible for health professionals and patients. There are positive indications from outcome measures in the feasibility trial, and key criteria for progression to full trial were met.

Factors associated with unmet need for support to maintain independence in later life: a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence.

BACKGROUND: populations are considered to have an 'unmet need' when they could benefit from, but do not get, the necessary support. Policy efforts to achieve equitable access to long-term care require an understanding of patterns of unmet need. A systematic review was conducted to identify factors associated with unmet need for support to maintain independence in later life. METHODS: seven bibliographic databases and four non-bibliographic evidence sources were searched. Quantitative observational studies and qualitative systematic reviews were included if they reported factors associated with unmet need for support to maintain independence in populations aged 50+, in high-income countries. No limits to publication date were imposed. Studies were quality assessed and a narrative synthesis used, supported by forest plots to visualise data. FINDINGS: forty-three quantitative studies and 10 qualitative systematic reviews were included. Evidence across multiple studies suggests that being male, younger age, living alone, having lower levels of income, poor self-rated health, more functional limitations and greater severity of depression were linked to unmet need. Other factors that were reported in single studies were also identified. In the qualitative reviews, care eligibility criteria, the quality, adequacy and absence of care, and cultural and language barriers were implicated in unmet need. CONCLUSIONS: this review identifies which groups of older people may be most at risk of not accessing the support they need to maintain independence. Ongoing monitoring of unmet need is critical to support policy efforts to achieve equal ageing and equitable access to care.

Impact of adherence to a lifestyle-integrated programme on physical function and behavioural complexity in young older adults at risk of functional decline: a multicentre RCT secondary analysis.

CONTEXT: Long-term adherence to physical activity (PA) interventions is challenging. The Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise programmes were adapted Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (aLiFE) to include more challenging activities and a behavioural change framework, and then enhanced Lifestyle-integrated Functional Exercise (eLiFE) to be delivered using smartphones and smartwatches. OBJECTIVES: To (1) compare adherence measures, (2) identify determinants of adherence and (3) assess the impact on outcome measures of a lifestyle-integrated programme. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicentre, feasibility randomised controlled trial including participants aged 61-70 years conducted in three European cities. INTERVENTIONS: Six-month trainer-supported aLiFE or eLiFE compared with a control group, which received written PA advice. OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-reporting adherence per month using a single question and after 6-month intervention using the Exercise Adherence Rating Scale (EARS, score range 6-24). Treatment outcomes included function and disability scores (measured using the Late-Life Function and Disability Index) and sensor-derived physical behaviour complexity measure. Determinants of adherence (EARS score) were identified using linear multivariate analysis. Linear regression estimated the association of adherence on treatment outcome. RESULTS: We included 120 participants randomised to the intervention groups (aLiFE/eLiFE) (66.3±2.3 years, 53% women). The 106 participants reassessed after 6 months had a mean EARS score of 16.0±5.1. Better adherence was associated with lower number of medications taken, lower depression and lower risk of functional decline. We estimated adherence to significantly increase basic lower extremity function by 1.3 points (p<0.0001), advanced lower extremity function by 1.0 point (p<0.0001) and behavioural complexity by 0.008 per 1.0 point higher EARS score (F(3,91)=3.55, p=0.017) regardless of group allocation. CONCLUSION: PA adherence was associated with better lower extremity function and physical behavioural complexity. Barriers to adherence should be addressed preintervention to enhance intervention efficacy. Further research is needed to unravel the impact of behaviour change techniques embedded into technology-delivered activity interventions on adherence. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03065088.

What supports and constrains the implementation of multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored multifactorial falls prevention interventions in acute hospitals? Protocol for a realist review.

INTRODUCTION: Falls are the most common type of safety incident reported by acute hospitals and can cause both physical (eg, hip fractures) and non-physical harm (eg, reduced confidence) to patients. It is recommended that, in order to prevent falls in hospital, patients should receive a multifactorial falls risk assessment and be provided with a multifactorial intervention, tailored to address the patient's identified individual risk factors. It is estimated that such an approach could reduce the incidence of inpatient falls by 25%-30% and reduce the annual cost of falls by up to 25%. However, there is substantial unexplained variation between hospitals in the number and type of assessments undertaken and interventions implemented. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A realist review will be undertaken to construct and test programme theories regarding (1) what supports and constrains the implementation of multifactorial falls risk assessment and tailored multifactorial falls prevention interventions in acute hospitals; and (2) how, why, in what contexts and for whom tailored multifactorial falls prevention interventions lead to a reduction in patients' falls risk. We will first identify stakeholders' theories concerning these two topics, searching Medline (1946-present) and Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Health Management Information Consortium (1983-present) and CINAHL (1981-present). We will then test these theories systematically, using primary studies to determine whether empirical evidence supports, refutes or suggests a revision or addition to the identified theories. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study does not require ethical approval. The review will provide evidence for how to implement multifactorial falls risk assessment and prevention strategies in acute hospital settings. This will be disseminated to academic and clinical audiences and will provide the basis for a future multi-site study through which the theories will be further refined. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020184458.

Implementation of the StandingTall programme to prevent falls in older people: a process evaluation protocol.

INTRODUCTION: One in three people aged 65 years and over fall each year. The health, economic and personal impact of falls will grow substantially in the coming years due to population ageing. Developing and implementing cost-effective strategies to prevent falls and mobility problems among older people is therefore an urgent public health challenge. StandingTall is a low-cost, unsupervised, home-based balance exercise programme delivered through a computer or tablet. StandingTall has a simple user-interface that incorporates physical and behavioural elements designed to promote compliance. A large randomised controlled trial in 503 community-dwelling older people has shown that StandingTall is safe, has high adherence rates and is effective in improving balance and reducing falls. The current project targets a major need for older people and will address the final steps needed to scale this innovative technology for widespread use by older people across Australia and internationally. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This project will endeavour to recruit 300 participants across three sites in Australia and 100 participants in the UK. The aim of the study is to evaluate the implementation of StandingTall into the community and health service settings in Australia and the UK. The nested process evaluation will use both quantitative and qualitative methods to explore uptake and acceptability of the StandingTall programme and associated resources. The primary outcome is participant adherence to the StandingTall programme over 6 months. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained from the South East Sydney Local Health District Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC reference 18/288) in Australia and the North West- Greater Manchester South Research Ethics Committee (IRAS ID: 268954) in the UK. Dissemination will be via publications, conferences, newsletter articles, social media, talks to clinicians and consumers and meetings with health departments/managers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12619001329156.

Prognostic models of survival in patients with advanced incurable cancer: the PiPS2 observational study.

BACKGROUND: The Prognosis in Palliative care Study (PiPS) prognostic survival models predict survival in patients with incurable cancer. PiPS-A (Prognosis in Palliative care Study - All), which involved clinical observations only, and PiPS-B (Prognosis in Palliative care Study - Blood), which additionally required blood test results, consist of 14- and 56-day models that combine to create survival risk categories: 'days', 'weeks' and 'months+'. OBJECTIVES: The primary objectives were to compare PIPS-B risk categories against agreed multiprofessional estimates of survival and to validate PiPS-A and PiPS-B. The secondary objectives were to validate other prognostic models, to assess the acceptability of the models to patients, carers and health-care professionals and to identify barriers to and facilitators of clinical use. DESIGN: This was a national, multicentre, prospective, observational, cohort study with a nested qualitative substudy using interviews with patients, carers and health-care professionals. SETTING: Community, hospital and hospice palliative care services across England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: For the validation study, the participants were adults with incurable cancer, with or without capacity to consent, who had been recently referred to palliative care services and had sufficient English language. For the qualitative substudy, a subset of participants in the validation study took part, along with informal carers, patients who declined to participate in the main study and health-care professionals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: For the validation study, the primary outcomes were survival, clinical prediction of survival and PiPS-B risk category predictions. The secondary outcomes were predictions of PiPS-A and other prognostic models. For the qualitative substudy, the main outcomes were participants' views about prognostication and the use of prognostic models. RESULTS: For the validation study, 1833 participants were recruited. PiPS-B risk categories were as accurate as agreed multiprofessional estimates of survival (61%; p = 0.851). Discrimination of the PiPS-B 14-day model (c-statistic 0.837, 95% confidence interval 0.810 to 0.863) and the PiPS-B 56-day model (c-statistic 0.810, 95% confidence interval 0.788 to 0.832) was excellent. The PiPS-B 14-day model showed some overfitting (calibration in the large -0.202, 95% confidence interval -0.364 to -0.039; calibration slope 0.840, 95% confidence interval 0.730 to 0.950). The PiPS-B 56-day model was well-calibrated (calibration in the large 0.152, 95% confidence interval 0.030 to 0.273; calibration slope 0.914, 95% confidence interval 0.808 to 1.02). PiPS-A risk categories were less accurate than agreed multiprofessional estimates of survival (p < 0.001). The PiPS-A 14-day model (c-statistic 0.825, 95% confidence interval 0.803 to 0.848; calibration in the large -0.037, 95% confidence interval -0.168 to 0.095; calibration slope 0.981, 95% confidence interval 0.872 to 1.09) and the PiPS-A 56-day model (c-statistic 0.776, 95% confidence interval 0.755 to 0.797; calibration in the large 0.109, 95% confidence interval 0.002 to 0.215; calibration slope 0.946, 95% confidence interval 0.842 to 1.05) had excellent or reasonably good discrimination and calibration. Other prognostic models were also validated. Where comparisons were possible, the other prognostic models performed less well than PiPS-B. For the qualitative substudy, 32 health-care professionals, 29 patients and 20 carers were interviewed. The majority of patients and carers expressed a desire for prognostic information and said that PiPS could be helpful. Health-care professionals said that PiPS was user friendly and may be helpful for decision-making and care-planning. The need for a blood test for PiPS-B was considered a limitation. LIMITATIONS: The results may not be generalisable to other populations. CONCLUSIONS: PiPS-B risk categories are as accurate as agreed multiprofessional estimates of survival. PiPS-A categories are less accurate. Patients, carers and health-care professionals regard PiPS as potentially helpful in clinical practice. FUTURE WORK: A study to evaluate the impact of introducing PiPS into routine clinical practice is needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13688211. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 28. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

A prognosis is a prediction about how long someone will live after a diagnosis of illness. The Prognosis in Palliative care Study (PiPS) tools [PiPS-A (Prognosis in Palliative care Study ­ All) and PiPS-B (Prognosis in Palliative care Study ­ Blood), respectively] were designed to predict survival in patients with incurable cancer. Previously, they were found to be as accurate as health-care professionals. The purpose of this study was to find out whether PiPS was more accurate at prognosticating than health-care professionals, to evaluate other prognostic tools and to ask patients, their carers and health-care professionals what they thought about using them. We studied 1833 patients with advanced cancer and calculated their PiPS score and other prognostic scores. We asked health-care professionals to estimate how long the patients would live. We then followed up the patients to find out how long they actually lived and if the predictions made by health-care professionals were as accurate as the predictions made by the prognostic tools. We interviewed patients, their carers and health-care professionals to ask them what they thought about using these prognostic tools. We found that PiPS-B was as accurate as the combined wisdom of a doctor and a nurse at predicting whether patients would live for 'days', 'weeks' or 'months+'. We found that PiPS-A predictions were not as accurate as predictions made by health-care professionals. We found that (where direct comparisons could be made) PiPS-B was better than other prognostic tools. Finally, we found that patients, carers and health-care professionals thought that PiPS tools could be helpful in clinical practice because they would be less subjective than clinicians' intuition. This means that PiPS-B could be considered as a tool to support clinician predictions of survival and may lead to patients and families being able to take more control at the end of their lives. Further research will be required to investigate whether or not this approach actually leads to improvements in care.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of hospital-based specialist palliative care for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers.

BACKGROUND: Serious illness is often characterised by physical/psychological problems, family support needs, and high healthcare resource use. Hospital-based specialist palliative care (HSPC) has developed to assist in better meeting the needs of patients and their families and potentially reducing hospital care expenditure. There is a need for clarity on the effectiveness and optimal models of HSPC, given that most people still die in hospital and also to allocate scarce resources judiciously. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care for adults with advanced illness (hereafter patients) and their unpaid caregivers/families. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, CDSR, DARE and HTA database via the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; PsycINFO; CareSearch; National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and two trial registers to August 2019, together with checking of reference lists and relevant systematic reviews, citation searching and contact with experts to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the impact of HSPC on outcomes for patients or their unpaid caregivers/families, or both. HSPC was defined as specialist palliative care delivered by a palliative care team that is based in a hospital providing holistic care, co-ordination by a multidisciplinary team, and collaboration between HSPC providers and generalists. HSPC was provided to patients while they were admitted as inpatients to acute care hospitals, outpatients or patients receiving care from hospital outreach teams at home. The comparator was usual care, defined as inpatient or outpatient hospital care without specialist palliative care input at the point of entry into the study, community care or hospice care provided outside of the hospital setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We assessed risk of bias and extracted data. To account for use of different scales across studies, we calculated standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We used an inverse variance random-effects model. For binary data, we calculated odds ratio (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed the evidence using GRADE and created a 'Summary of findings' table. Our primary outcomes were patient health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and symptom burden (a collection of two or more symptoms). Key secondary outcomes were pain, depression, satisfaction with care, achieving preferred place of death, mortality/survival, unpaid caregiver burden, and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative data was analysed where available. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 42 RCTs involving 7779 participants (6678 patients and 1101 caregivers/family members). Twenty-one studies were with cancer populations, 14 were with non-cancer populations (of which six were with heart failure patients), and seven with mixed cancer and non-cancer populations (mixed diagnoses). HSPC was offered in different ways and included the following models: ward-based, inpatient consult, outpatient, hospital-at-home or hospital outreach, and service provision across multiple settings which included hospital. For our main analyses, we pooled data from studies reporting adjusted endpoint values. Forty studies had a high risk of bias in at least one domain. Compared with usual care, HSPC improved patient HRQoL with a small effect size of 0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.15 to 0.37; I2 = 3%, 10 studies, 1344 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient HRQoL). HSPC also improved other person-centred outcomes. It reduced patient symptom burden with a small effect size of -0.26 SMD over usual care (95% CI -0.41 to -0.12; I2 = 0%, 6 studies, 761 participants, very low-quality evidence, lower scores indicate lower symptom burden). HSPC improved patient satisfaction with care with a small effect size of 0.36 SMD over usual care (95% CI 0.41 to 0.57; I2 = 0%, 2 studies, 337 participants, low-quality evidence, higher scores indicate better patient satisfaction with care). Using home death as a proxy measure for achieving patient's preferred place of death, patients were more likely to die at home with HSPC compared to usual care (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.23 to 2.16; I2 = 0%, 7 studies, 861 participants, low-quality evidence). Data on pain (4 studies, 525 participants) showed no evidence of a difference between HSPC and usual care (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.01; I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence). Eight studies (N = 1252 participants) reported on adverse events and very low-quality evidence did not demonstrate an effect of HSPC on serious harms. Two studies (170 participants) presented data on caregiver burden and both found no evidence of effect of HSPC (very low-quality evidence). We included 13 economic studies (2103 participants). Overall, the evidence on cost-effectiveness of HSPC compared to usual care was inconsistent among the four full economic studies. Other studies that used only partial economic analysis and those that presented more limited resource use and cost information also had inconsistent results (very low-quality evidence). Quality of the evidence The quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was very low to low, downgraded due to a high risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low- to low-quality evidence suggests that when compared to usual care, HSPC may offer small benefits for several person-centred outcomes including patient HRQoL, symptom burden and patient satisfaction with care, while also increasing the chances of patients dying in their preferred place (measured by home death). While we found no evidence that HSPC causes serious harms, the evidence was insufficient to draw strong conclusions. Although these are only small effect sizes, they may be clinically relevant at an advanced stage of disease with limited prognosis, and are person-centred outcomes important to many patients and families. More well conducted studies are needed to study populations with non-malignant diseases and mixed diagnoses, ward-based models of HSPC, 24 hours access (out-of-hours care) as part of HSPC, pain, achieving patient preferred place of care, patient satisfaction with care, caregiver outcomes (satisfaction with care, burden, depression, anxiety, grief, quality of life), and cost-effectiveness of HSPC. In addition, research is needed to provide validated person-centred outcomes to be used across studies and populations.

The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of strength and balance Exergames to reduce falls risk for people aged 55 years and older in UK assisted living facilities: a multi-centre, cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Falls are the leading cause of fatal and non-fatal unintentional injuries in older people. The use of Exergames (active, gamified video-based exercises) is a possible innovative, community-based approach. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of a tailored OTAGO/FaME-based strength and balance Exergame programme for improving balance, maintaining function and reducing falls risk in older people. METHODS: A two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial recruiting adults aged 55 years and older living in 18 assisted living (sheltered housing) facilities (clusters) in the UK. Standard care (physiotherapy advice and leaflet) was compared to a tailored 12-week strength and balance Exergame programme, supported by physiotherapists or trained assistants. Complete case analysis (intention-to-treat) was used to compare the Berg Balance Scale (BBS) at baseline and at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included fear of falling, mobility, fall risk, pain, mood, fatigue, cognition, healthcare utilisation and health-related quality of life, and self-reported physical activity and falls. RESULTS: Eighteen clusters were randomised (9 to each arm) with 56 participants allocated to the intervention and 50 to the control (78% female, mean age 78 years). Fourteen participants withdrew over the 12 weeks (both arms), mainly for ill health. There was an adjusted mean improvement in balance (BBS) of 6.2 (95% CI 2.4 to 10.0) and reduced fear of falling (p = 0.007) and pain (p = 0.02) in the Exergame group. Mean attendance at sessions was 69% (mean exercising time of 33 min/week). Twenty-four percent of the control group and 20% of the Exergame group fell over the trial period. The change in fall rates significantly favoured the intervention (incident rate ratio 0.31 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.62, p = 0.001)). The point estimate of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was £15,209.80 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Using 10,000 bootstrap replications, at the lower bound of the NICE threshold of £20,000 per QALY, there was a 61% probability of Exergames being cost-effective, rising to 73% at the upper bound of £30,000 per QALY. CONCLUSIONS: Exergames, as delivered in this trial, improve balance, pain and fear of falling and are a cost-effective fall prevention strategy in assisted living facilities for people aged 55 years or older. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on 18 Dec 2015 with reference number NCT02634736 .

Home parenteral nutrition for people with inoperable malignant bowel obstruction.

BACKGROUND: People with advanced ovarian or gastrointestinal cancer may develop malignant bowel obstruction (MBO). They are able to tolerate limited, if any, oral or enteral (via a tube directly into the gut) nutrition. Parenteral nutrition (PN) is the provision of macronutrients, micronutrients, electrolytes and fluid infused as an intravenous solution and provides a method for these people to receive nutrients. There are clinical and ethical arguments for and against the administration of PN to people receiving palliative care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) in improving survival and quality of life in people with inoperable MBO. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 1), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), BNI, CINAHL, Web of Science and NHS Economic Evaluation and Health Technology Assessment up to January 2018, ClinicalTrials.gov (http://clinicaltrials.gov/) and in the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal (http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/). In addition, we handsearched included studies and used the 'Similar articles' feature on PubMed for included articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included any studies with more than five participants investigating HPN in people over 16 years of age with inoperable MBO. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted the data and assessed risk of bias for each study. We entered data into Review Manager 5 and used GRADEpro to assess the quality of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 13 studies with a total of 721 participants in the review. The studies were observational, 12 studies had only one relevant treatment arm and no control and for the one study with a control arm, very few details were given. The risk of bias was high and the certainty of evidence was graded as very low for all outcomes. Due to heterogeneity of data, meta-analysis was not performed and therefore the data were synthesised via a narrative summary.The evidence for benefit derived from PN was very low for survival and quality of life. All the studies measured overall survival and 636 (88%) of participants were deceased at the end of the study. However there were varying definitions of overall survival that yielded median survival intervals between 15 to 155 days (range three to 1278 days). Three studies used validated measures of quality of life. The results from assessment of quality of life were equivocal; one study reported improvements up until three months and two studies reported approximately similar numbers of participants with improvements and deterioration. Different quality of life scales were used in each of the studies and quality of life was measured at different time points. Due to the very low certainty of the evidence, we are very uncertain about the adverse events related to PN use. Adverse events were measured by nine studies and data for individual participants could be extracted from eight studies. This revealed that 32 of 260 (12%) patients developed a central venous catheter infection or were hospitalised because of complications related to PN. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain whether HPN improves survival or quality of life in people with MBO as the certainty of evidence was very low for both outcomes. As the evidence base is limited and at high risk of bias, further higher-quality prospective studies are required.

A prospective cohort study measuring cost-benefit analysis of the Otago Exercise Programme in community dwelling adults with rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Falls are one of the major health problems in adults with Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). Interventions, such as the Otago Exercise Programme (OEP), can reduce falls in community dwelling adults by up to 35%. The cost-benefits of such a programme in adults with RA have not been studied. The aims of this study were to determine the healthcare cost of falls in adults with RA, and estimate whether it may be cost efficient to roll out the OEP to improve function and prevent falls in adults living with RA. METHODS: Patients with Rheumatoid Arthritis aged ≥18 years were recruited from four rheumatology clinics across the Northwest of England. Participants were followed up for 1 year with monthly fall calendars, telephone calls and self-report questionnaires. Estimated medical cost of a fall-related injury incurred per-person were calculated and compared with OEP implementation costs to establish potential economic benefits. RESULTS: Five hundred thirty-five patients were recruited and 598 falls were reported by 195 patients. Cumulative medical costs resulting from all injury leading to hospital services is £374,354 (US$540,485). Average estimated cost per fall is £1120 (US$1617). Estimated cost of implementing the OEP for 535 people is £116,479 (US$168,504) or £217.72 (US$314.34) per-person. Based on effectiveness of the OEP it can be estimated that out of the 598 falls, 209 falls would be prevented. This suggests that £234,583 (US$338,116) savings could be made, a net benefit of £118,104 (US$170,623). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the OEP programme for patients with RA has potentially significant economic benefits and should be considered for patients with the condition.

The clinical and cost effectiveness of a Breathlessness Intervention Service for patients with advanced non-malignant disease and their informal carers: mixed findings of a mixed method randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Breathlessness is the most common and intrusive symptom of advanced non-malignant respiratory and cardiac conditions. The Breathlessness Intervention Service (BIS) is a multi-disciplinary complex intervention, theoretically underpinned by a palliative care approach, utilising evidence-based non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to support patients with advanced disease in managing their breathlessness. Having published the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of BIS for patients with advanced cancer and their carers, we sought to establish its effectiveness, and cost effectiveness, in advanced non-malignant conditions. METHODS: This was a single-centre Phase III fast-track single-blind mixed method RCT of BIS versus standard care for breathless patients with non-malignant conditions and their carers. Randomisation was to one of two groups (randomly permuted blocks). Eighty-seven patients referred to BIS were randomised (intervention arm n = 44; control arm n = 43 received BIS after four-week wait); 79 (91 %) completed to key outcome measurement. The primary outcome measure was 0-10 numeric rating scale for patient distress due to breathlessness at four weeks. Secondary outcome measures were Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Client Service Receipt Inventory, EQ-5D and topic-guided interviews. RESULTS: Qualitative analyses showed the positive impact of BIS on patients with non-malignant conditions and their carers; quantitative analyses showed a non-significant greater reduction in the primary outcome ('distress due to breathlessness'), when compared to standard care, of -0.24 (95 % CI: -1.30, 0.82). BIS resulted in extra mean costs of £799, reducing to £100 when outliers were excluded; neither difference was statistically significant. The quantitative findings contrasted with those previously reported for patients with cancer and their carers, which showed BIS to be both clinically and cost effective. For patients with non-malignant conditions there was a notable trend of improvement over both trial arms to the key measurement point; participants may have experienced a therapeutic effect from the research interviews, diluting the intervention's impact. CONCLUSIONS: BIS had a statistically non-significant effect for patients with non-malignant conditions, and slightly increased service costs, but had a qualitatively positive impact consistent with findings for advanced cancer. Trials of palliative care interventions should consider multiple, mixed method, primary outcomes and ensure that protocols limit potential contaminating therapeutic effects in study designs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04119516 (December 2008); ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00678405 (May 2008).

Is a specialist breathlessness service more effective and cost-effective for patients with advanced cancer and their carers than standard care? Findings of a mixed-method randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Breathlessness is common in advanced cancer. The Breathlessness Intervention Service (BIS) is a multi-disciplinary complex intervention theoretically underpinned by a palliative care approach, utilising evidence-based non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions to support patients with advanced disease. We sought to establish whether BIS was more effective, and cost-effective, for patients with advanced cancer and their carers than standard care. METHODS: A single-centre Phase III fast-track single-blind mixed-method randomised controlled trial (RCT) of BIS versus standard care was conducted. Participants were randomised to one of two groups (randomly permuted blocks). A total of 67 patients referred to BIS were randomised (intervention arm n = 35; control arm n = 32 received BIS after a two-week wait); 54 completed to the key outcome measurement. The primary outcome measure was a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale for patient distress due to breathlessness at two-weeks. Secondary outcomes were evaluated using the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Client Services Receipt Inventory, EQ-5D and topic-guided interviews. RESULTS: BIS reduced patient distress due to breathlessness (primary outcome: -1.29; 95% CI -2.57 to -0.005; P = 0.049) significantly more than the control group; 94% of respondents reported a positive impact (51/53). BIS reduced fear and worry, and increased confidence in managing breathlessness. Patients and carers consistently identified specific and repeatable aspects of the BIS model and interventions that helped. How interventions were delivered was important. BIS legitimised breathlessness and increased knowledge whilst making patients and carers feel 'not alone'. BIS had a 66% likelihood of better outcomes in terms of reduced distress due to breathlessness at lower health/social care costs than standard care (81% with informal care costs included). CONCLUSIONS: BIS appears to be more effective and cost-effective in advanced cancer than standard care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: RCT registration at ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00678405 (May 2008) and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04119516 (December 2008).

Older adults' perceptions of technologies aimed at falls prevention, detection or monitoring: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Over recent years a number of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have emerged aiming at falls prevention, falls detection and alarms for use in case of fall. There are also a range of ICT interventions, which have been created or adapted to be pro-active in preventing falls, such as those which provide strength and balance training to older adults in the prevention of falls. However, there are issues related to the adoption and continued use of these technologies by older adults. OBJECTIVES: This review provides an overview of older adults' perceptions of falls technologies. METHODS: We undertook systematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsychINFO, COMPENDEX and the Cochrane database. Key search terms included 'older adults', 'seniors', 'preference', 'attitudes' and a wide range of technologies, they also included the key word 'fall*'. We considered all studies that included older adults aged 50 and above. Studies had to include technologies related specifically to falls prevention, detection or monitoring. The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tool and the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies by the Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) were used. RESULTS: We identified 76 potentially relevant papers. Some 21 studies were considered for quality review. Twelve qualitative studies, three quantitative studies and 6 mixed methods studies were included. The literature related to technologies aimed at predicting, monitoring and preventing falls suggest that intrinsic factors related to older adults' attitudes around control, independence and perceived need/requirements for safety are important for their motivation to use and continue using technologies. Extrinsic factors such as usability, feedback gained and costs are important elements which support these attitudes and perceptions. CONCLUSION: Positive messages about the benefits of falls technologies for promoting healthy active ageing and independence are critical, as is ensuring that the technologies are simple, reliable and effective and tailored to individual need. The technologies need to be clearly described in research and older peoples' attitudes towards different sorts of technologies must be clarified if specific recommendations are to be made.

Evaluating complex interventions in end of life care: the MORECare statement on good practice generated by a synthesis of transparent expert consultations and systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Despite being a core business of medicine, end of life care (EoLC) is neglected. It is hampered by research that is difficult to conduct with no common standards. We aimed to develop evidence-based guidance on the best methods for the design and conduct of research on EoLC to further knowledge in the field. METHODS: The Methods Of Researching End of life Care (MORECare) project built on the Medical Research Council guidance on the development and evaluation of complex circumstances. We conducted systematic literature reviews, transparent expert consultations (TEC) involving consensus methods of nominal group and online voting, and stakeholder workshops to identify challenges and best practice in EoLC research, including: participation recruitment, ethics, attrition, integration of mixed methods, complex outcomes and economic evaluation. We synthesised all findings to develop a guidance statement on the best methods to research EoLC. RESULTS: We integrated data from three systematic reviews and five TECs with 133 online responses. We recommend research designs extending beyond randomised trials and encompassing mixed methods. Patients and families value participation in research, and consumer or patient collaboration in developing studies can resolve some ethical concerns. It is ethically desirable to offer patients and families the opportunity to participate in research. Outcome measures should be short, responsive to change and ideally used for both clinical practice and research. Attrition should be anticipated in studies and may affirm inclusion of the relevant population, but careful reporting is necessitated using a new classification. Eventual implementation requires consideration at all stages of the project. CONCLUSIONS: The MORECare statement provides 36 best practice solutions for research evaluating services and treatments in EoLC to improve study quality and set the standard for future research. The statement may be used alongside existing statements and provides a first step in setting common, much needed standards for evaluative research in EoLC. These are relevant to those undertaking research, trainee researchers, research funders, ethical committees and editors.

Patterns of access to community palliative care services: a literature review.

Policies state that access to palliative care should be provided according to principles of equity. Such principles would include the absence of disparities in access to health care that are systematically associated with social advantage. A review of the literature a decade ago identified that patients with different characteristics used community palliative care services in variable ways that appeared inequitable. The objective of this literature review was to review recent literature to identify whether such variability remains. Searching included the use of electronic databases, scrutinizing bibliographies, and hand searching journals. Articles were included if they were published after 1997 (the date of the previous review) up to the beginning of 2008, and if they reported any data that investigated the characteristics of adult patients in relation to their relative utilization of community palliative care services, with reference to a comparator population. Forty-eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Patients still access community palliative care services in variable ways. Those who are older, male, from ethnic minority populations, not married, without a home carer, are socioeconomically disadvantaged, and who do not have cancer are all less likely to access community palliative care services. These studies do not identify the reasons for such variable access, or whether such variability is warranted with reference to clinical need or other factors. Studies tend to focus on access to specialist palliative care services without looking at the complexities of service use. Studies need to move beyond description of utilization patterns, and examine whether such patterns are inequitable, and what is happening in the referral or other processes that may result in such patterns.

Do postage stamps versus pre-paid envelopes increase responses to patient mail surveys? A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Studies largely from the market research field suggest that the inclusion of a stamped addressed envelope, rather than a pre-paid business reply, increases the response rate to mail surveys. The evidence that this is also the case regarding patient mail surveys is limited. METHODS: The aim of this study is to investigate whether stamped addressed envelopes increase response rates to patient mail surveys compared to pre-paid business reply envelopes and compare the relative costs. A sample of 477 initial non-responders to a mail survey of patients attending breast clinics in Greater Manchester between 1/10/2002 - 31/7/2003 were entered into the trial: 239 were randomly allocated to receive a stamped envelope and 238 to receive a pre-paid envelope in with their reminder surveys. Overall cost and per item returned were calculated. RESULTS: The response to the stamped envelope group was 31.8% (95% CI: 25.9% - 37.7%) compared to 26.9% (21.3% - 32.5%) for the pre-paid group. The difference (4.9% 95% CI: -3.3% - 13.1%) is not significant at alpha = 0.05 (chi2 = 1.39; 2 tailed test, d.f. = 1; P = 0.239). The stamped envelopes were cheaper in terms of cost per returned item (1.20 pounds) than the pre-paid envelopes (1.67 pounds). However if the set up cost for the licence to use the pre-paid service is excluded, the cost of the stamped envelopes is more expensive than pre-paid returns (1.20 pounds versus 0.73 pounds). CONCLUSION: Compared with pre-paid business replies, stamped envelopes did not produce a statistically significant increase in response rate to this patient survey. However, the response gain of the stamped strategy (4.9%) is similar to that demonstrated in a Cochrane review (5.3%) of strategies to increase response to general mail surveys. Further studies and meta analyses of patient responses to mail surveys via stamped versus pre-paid envelopes are needed with sufficient power to detect response gains of this magnitude in a patient population.