Multidimensional frailty as a predictor of mortality among older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review examined studies that assessed the relationship between mortality risk and multidimensional frailty. The pooled risk of mortality was estimated via a meta-analysis. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: A systematic search for potentially eligible literature was conducted on January 2, 2023, using five electronic databases: Web of Science, CINAHL, PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase. This review included cohort or longitudinal studies examining the association between multidimensional frailty/prefrailty and mortality in older adults. The quality of the included studies was evaluated via the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. Two independent researchers identified eligible studies and extracted the data. The data analyses were performed via STATA, version 15.0. RESULTS: A total of 24 studies with 34,664 participants were included. The 24 studies were published between 2012 and 2022, with most studies being performed in Italy (n = 16). The sample sizes of the included studies ranged from 71 to 12,020. Most included studies were conducted in hospital settings. The QUIPS bias assessment results showed that the most frequent source of potential bias was study confounding. The meta-analysis results showed that multidimensional frailty was a significant predictor of mortality (HR = 5.48, 95% CI = 3.91-7.67, p < 0.001). In addition, multidimensional prefrailty was also a significant predictor of mortality (HR = 2.56, 95% CI = 2.17-3.02, p < 0.001). The results of the meta-analysis using the ORs revealed that multidimensional frailty was a risk factor for mortality in older people (OR = 4.59, 95% CI = 2.47-8.55, p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: This systematic review of the relationship between multidimensional frailty and mortality found that multidimensional frailty/prefrailty is a predictor of mortality. More studies should be conducted in community dwelling populations and nursing homes.

Effectiveness of Integrated Care for Older Pepole (ICOPE) in Improving Intrinsic Capacity in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Conduct a systematic review of existing studies on intrinsic capacity (IC) and a meta-analysis of studies to assess the overall effectiveness of ICOPE in improving IC in older adults. METHODS: Ten databases were systematically searched from inception to November 8, 2023, and the search was last updated on January 2, 2024. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The main outcomes were IC (cognition, psychological, sensory, vitality and locomotion). RESULTS: The results showed ICOPE had a significant effect in improving cognitive function (SMD = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.56, p < 0.001, 12 RCTs, 7926 participants) and depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.70; 95% CI, -0.96 to -0.43, p < 0.001, 26 RCTs, 11,034 participants), but there was no statistically significant difference in improving locomotion (SMD = 0.16; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.34, p = 0.098, 3 RCTs, 1580 participants). Meta-regression analysis shows that intervention duration should be paid attention to when the source of heterogeneity is discussed on the cognition. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that ICOPE may be a potentially effective approach to help improve the IC in older adults, showing significant potential for improving cognitive function and reducing depressive symptoms in particular. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: ICOPE is expected to provide effective strategies to enhance issues such as IC and may be an innovative way to improve the overall health of older adults. This result provides strong support for geriatric nursing practice and encourages the adoption of ICOPE as a viable nursing approach to promote healthy ageing.

Effectiveness of integrated care for older adults-based interventions on depressive symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To pool existing studies to assess the overall effectiveness of integrated care for older adults (ICOPE)-based interventions in improving depressive symptoms in older adults. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Ten databases were systematically searched from inception to 15 July 2023 and the search was last updated on 2 September 2023. METHODS: Standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated using random effects models. RoB 2 and GRADEpro GDT were used to assess the methodological quality and confidence in the cumulative evidence. Funnel plots, egger's test and begg's test were used to analyse publication bias. Sensitivity, subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: The results of 18 studies showed ICOPE-based interventions had a significant effect on improving depressive symptoms (SMD = -.84; 95% CI, -1.20 to -.3647; p < .001; 18 RCTs, 5010 participants; very low-quality evidence). Subgroup analysis showed the intervention group was characterized by mean age (70-80 years old), intervention duration between 6 to 12 months, gender (female <50%), non-frail older adults, depressed older adults and mixed integration appeared to be more effective. Sensitivity analysis found the results to be robust. CONCLUSION: ICOPE-based interventions may be a potentially effective alternative approach to reduce depressive symptoms in the older adults. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Healthcare professionals are expected to use ICOPE as one of the interventions for depressive symptoms in older adults, and this ICOPE could provide more comprehensive care services for older adults to reduce depressive symptoms. IMPACT: ICOPE-based interventions may be a potentially effective alternative approach to reduce depressive symptoms in the older adults. ICOPE-based interventions had a significant effect on reducing depressive symptoms in the older adults. The intervention group characterized by mean age of older adults, intervention duration, gender ratio, health condition and integration types may influence the effect size. REPORTING METHOD: According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution.