Predictive accuracy of risk prediction models for recurrence, metastasis and survival for early-stage cutaneous melanoma: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify prognostic models for melanoma survival, recurrence and metastasis among American Joint Committee on Cancer stage I and II patients postsurgery; and evaluate model performance, including overall survival (OS) prediction. DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index and grey literature sources including cancer and guideline websites from 2000 to September 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Included studies on risk prediction models for stage I and II melanoma in adults ≥18 years. Outcomes included OS, recurrence, metastases and model performance. No language or country of publication restrictions were applied. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two pairs of reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias using the CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling Studies checklist and the Prediction study Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Heterogeneous predictors prevented statistical synthesis. RESULTS: From 28 967 records, 15 studies reporting 20 models were included; 8 (stage I), 2 (stage II), 7 (stages I-II) and 7 (stages not reported), but were clearly applicable to early stages. Clinicopathological predictors per model ranged from 3-10. The most common were: ulceration, Breslow thickness/depth, sociodemographic status and site. Where reported, discriminatory values were ≥0.7. Calibration measures showed good matches between predicted and observed rates. None of the studies assessed clinical usefulness of the models. Risk of bias was high in eight models, unclear in nine and low in three. Seven models were internally and externally cross-validated, six models were externally validated and eight models were internally validated. CONCLUSIONS: All models are effective in their predictive performance, however the low quality of the evidence raises concern as to whether current follow-up recommendations following surgical treatment is adequate. Future models should incorporate biomarkers for improved accuracy. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018086784.

Systematic review of the relationship between burn-out and spiritual health in doctors.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between burn-out and spiritual health among medical doctors. DESIGN: Systematic literature review and narrative synthesis of cross-sectional studies. SETTING: Any setting, worldwide. DATA SOURCES: Five databases were searched from inception to March 2022, including Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus and Web of Science. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Any study design that involved medical doctors (and other healthcare staff if assessed alongside medical doctors), that measured (in any way) both burn-out (or similar) and spiritual health (or similar) medical doctors. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: All records were double screened. Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and a proportion (10%) checked by a second reviewer. Quality was assessed using the Appraisal of Cross-sectional Studies tool. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, a narrative review was undertaken without a meta-analysis. RESULTS: Searches yielded 1049 studies. 40 studies met eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Low reported levels of spirituality were associated with high burn-out scores and vice versa. Religion was not significantly associated with lower levels of burn-out. Few studies reported statistically significant findings, few used validated spiritual scores and most were vulnerable to sampling bias. CONCLUSIONS: Published research suggests that burn-out is linked to spiritual health in medical doctors but not to religion. Robust research is needed to confirm these findings and develop effective interventions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020200145.

Unrepresented, unheard and discriminated against: A qualitative exploration of relatives' and professionals' views of palliative care experiences of people of African and Caribbean descent during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: People of African and Caribbean descent experienced disproportionately high mortality from COVID-19 and have poor access to palliative care. AIM: To explore palliative care experiences of people of African and Caribbean descent during and immediately prior to the pandemic. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study with thematic analysis. Refinement of themes/recommendations in consultation with an expert patient and public advisory group. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-six bereaved relatives and 13 health/social care professionals (cared for people of African and Caribbean descent) from throughout England, recruited using social media, community networks and direct advertising to over 150 organisations. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: Representation: Participants did not see themselves reflected in the palliative care services and did not expect their needs to be understood. Mistrust of the healthcare system and perceptions of racism were common and led to anticipation of inequitable care. Personalisation: Relatives and professionals reported a lack of cultural and religious sensitivity in healthcare. Assumptions were made based on ethnicity, and services not offered to all. Awareness and education: Professionals felt they lacked the knowledge to provide care to diverse communities, but were reluctant to ask, due to fear of making mistakes. Inequitable access to services was exacerbated by, but not unique to, the pandemic. Participants recommended raising awareness of palliative services, building professional competence in culturally-sensitive care, and greater ethnic diversity within services. CONCLUSIONS: Person-centred, culturally-competent palliative care is not the norm for people of African and Caribbean descent. Expectations of inequitable care are widespread. Sustained action on multiple fronts is needed.

A systematic review finds a lack of consensus in methodological approaches in health inequality/inequity focused reviews.

OBJECTIVES: To critically review and analyze evidence synthesis articles using health inequality/inequity guidance to support their review. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A comprehensive, systematic search of six social science databases (1990 to May 2022) and grey literature sources was undertaken. A narrative approach to synthesis was adopted, describing and categorizing the characteristics of included articles. A comparison of the existing methodological guides was also conducted, discussing the similarities and differences between them. RESULTS: From 205 identified reviews published between 2008 and 2022, 62 (30%) focusing on health inequality/inequity, met the criteria. The reviews were diverse in terms of methodology, populations, intervention level, and clinical areas. Only 19 (31%) reviews discussed the definition of inequality/inequity. Two methodological guides were identified: (i) the PROGRESS/Plus framework and (ii) the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Equity checklist. CONCLUSION: A critique on the methodological guides reaffirms a lack of clarity or guidance on how health inequality/inequity should be considered. The PROGRESS/Plus framework narrowly focuses on dimensions of health inequality/inequity but rarely considers the pathways and interactions of these dimensions and their effect on outcomes. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Equity checklist on the other hand provides guidance on report. A conceptual framework is needed to show the pathways and interactions of dimensions of health inequality/inequity.

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.

Effects of Digital Technologies on Older People's Access to Health and Social Care: Umbrella Review.

BACKGROUND: The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic prompted the rapid implementation of new and existing digital technologies to facilitate access to health and care services during physical distancing. Older people may be disadvantaged in that regard if they are unable to use or have access to smartphones, tablets, computers, or other technologies. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we synthesized evidence on the impact of digital technologies on older adults' access to health and social services. METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews published from January 2000 to October 2019 using comprehensive searches of 6 databases. We looked for reviews in a population of adults aged ≥65 years in any setting, reporting outcomes related to the impact of technologies on access to health and social care services. RESULTS: A total of 7 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, providing data from 77 randomized controlled trials and 50 observational studies. All of them synthesized findings from low-quality primary studies, 2 of which used robust review methods. Most of the reviews focused on digital technologies to facilitate remote delivery of care, including consultations and therapy. No studies examined technologies used for first contact access to care, such as online appointment scheduling. Overall, we found no reviews of technology to facilitate first contact access to health and social care such as online appointment booking systems for older populations. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of digital technologies on equitable access to services for older people is unclear. Research is urgently needed in order to understand the positive and negative consequences of digital technologies on health care access and to identify the groups most vulnerable to exclusion.

What are the consequences of caring for older people and what interventions are effective for supporting unpaid carers? A rapid review of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: To identify and map evidence about the consequences of unpaid caring for all carers of older people, and effective interventions to support this carer population. DESIGN: A rapid review of systematic reviews, focused on the consequences for carers of unpaid caring for older people, and interventions to support this heterogeneous group of carers. Reviews of carers of all ages were eligible, with any outcome measures relating to carers' health, and social and financial well-being. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, PsycInfo and Epistemonikos (January 2000 to January 2020). Records were screened, and included systematic reviews were quality appraised. Summary data were extracted and a narrative synthesis produced. RESULTS: Twelve systematic reviews reporting evidence about the consequences of caring for carers (n=6) and assessing the effectiveness of carer interventions (n=6) were included. The review evidence typically focused on mental health outcomes, with little information identified about carers' physical, social and financial well-being. Clear estimates of the prevalence and severity of carer outcomes, and how these differ between carers and non-carers, were absent. A range of interventions were identified, but there was no strong evidence of effectiveness. In some studies, the choice of outcome measure may underestimate the full impact of an intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence fails to fully quantify the impacts that caring for older people has on carers' health and well-being. Information on social patterning of the consequences of caring is absent. Systematic measurement of a broad range of outcomes, with comparison to the general population, is needed to better understand the true consequences of caring. Classification of unpaid caring as a social determinant of health could be an effective lever to bring greater focus and support to this population. Further work is needed to develop and identify suitable interventions in order to support evidence-based policymaking and practice.

Prevalence of loneliness amongst older people in high-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Loneliness is associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality, and is a growing public health concern in later life. This study aimed to produce an evidence-based estimate of the prevalence of loneliness amongst older people (aged 60 years and above). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of observational studies from high income countries 2008 to 2020, identified from searches of five electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Proquest Social Sciences Premium Collection). Studies were included if they measured loneliness in an unselected population. RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies reported data on 120,000 older people from 29 countries. Thirty-one studies were suitable for meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence estimate of loneliness was 28.5% (95%CI: 23.9% - 33.2%). In twenty-nine studies reporting loneliness severity, the pooled prevalence was 25.9% (95%CI: 21.6% - 30.3%) for moderate loneliness and 7.9% (95%CI: 4.8% - 11.6%) for severe loneliness (z = -6.1, p < 0.001). Similar pooled prevalence estimates were observed for people aged 65-75 years (27.6%, 95%CI: 22.6% - 33.0%) and over 75 years (31.3%, 95%CI: 21.0% - 42.7%, z = 0.64, p = 0.52). Lower levels of loneliness were reported in studies from Northern Europe compared to South and Eastern Europe. CONCLUSIONS: Loneliness is common amongst older adults affecting approximately one in four in high income countries. There is no evidence of an increase in the prevalence of loneliness with age in the older population. The burden of loneliness is an important public health and social problem, despite severe loneliness being uncommon. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42017060472.

Trends in health expectancies: a systematic review of international evidence.

OBJECTIVES: A clear understanding of whether increases in longevity are spent in good health is necessary to support ageing, health and care-related policy. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review to update and summarise evidence on trends in health expectancies, in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) high-income countries. DATA SOURCES: Four electronic databases (MEDLINE, 1946-19 September 2019; Embase 1980-2019 week 38; Scopus 1966-22 September 2019, Health Management Information Consortium, 1979-September 2019), and the UK Office for National Statistics website (November 2019). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: English language studies published from 2016 that reported trends in healthy, active and/or disability-free life expectancy in an OECD high-income country. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Records were screened independently by two researchers. Study quality was assessed using published criteria designed to identify sources of bias in studies reporting trends, and evidence summarised by narrative synthesis. FINDINGS: Twenty-eight publications from 11 countries were included, covering periods from 6 to 40 years, between 1970 and 2017. In most countries, gains in healthy and disability-free life expectancy do not match the growth in total life expectancy. Exceptions were demonstrated for women in Sweden, where there were greater gains in disability-free years than life expectancy. Gains in healthy and disability-free life expectancy were greater for men than women in most countries except the USA (age 85), Japan (birth), Korea (age 65) and Sweden (age 77). CONCLUSION: An expansion of disability in later life is evident in a number of high-income countries, with implications for the sustainability of health and care systems. The recent COVID-19 pandemic may also impact health expectancies in the longer term.

Measuring frailty in younger populations: a rapid review of evidence.

OBJECTIVES: Frailty is typically assessed in older populations. Identifying frailty in adults aged under 60 years may also have value, if it supports the delivery of timely care. We sought to identify how frailty is measured in younger populations, including evidence of the impact on patient outcomes and care. DESIGN: A rapid review of primary studies was conducted. DATA SOURCES: Four databases, three sources of grey literature and reference lists of systematic reviews were searched in March 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Eligible studies measured frailty in populations aged under 60 years using experimental or observational designs, published after 2000 in English. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Records were screened against review criteria. Study data were extracted with 20% of records checked for accuracy by a second researcher. Data were synthesised using a narrative approach. RESULTS: We identified 268 studies that measured frailty in samples that included people aged under 60 years. Of these, 85 studies reported evidence about measure validity. No measures were identified that were designed and validated to identify frailty exclusively in younger groups. However, in populations that included people aged over and under 60 years, cumulative deficit frailty indices, phenotype measures, the FRAIL Scale, the Liver Frailty Index and the Short Physical Performance Battery all demonstrated predictive validity for mortality and/or hospital admission. Evidence of criterion validity was rare. The extent to which measures possess validity across the younger adult age (18-59 years) spectrum was unclear. There was no evidence about the impact of measuring frailty in younger populations on patient outcomes and care. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence suggests that frailty measures have predictive validity in younger populations. Further research is needed to clarify the validity of measures across the adult age spectrum, and explore the utility of measuring frailty in younger groups.