Examining the social networks of older adults receiving informal or formal care: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To address the care needs of older adults, it is important to identify and understand the forms of care support older adults received. This systematic review aims to examine the social networks of older adults receiving informal or formal care and the factors that influenced their networks. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by searching six databases from inception to January 31, 2023. The review included primary studies focusing on older adults receiving long-term care, encompassing both informal and formal care. To assess the risk of bias in the included studies, validated appraisal tools specifically designed for different study types were utilized. Network analysis was employed to identify the grouping of study concepts, which subsequently formed the foundation for describing themes through narrative synthesis. RESULTS: We identified 121 studies relating to the formal and informal care of older adults' networks. A variety of social ties were examined by included studies. The most commonly examined sources of care support were family members (such as children and spouses) and friends. Several factors were consistently reported to influence the provision of informal care, including the intensity of networks, reciprocity, and geographical proximity. In terms of formal care utilization, older age and poor health status were found to be associated with increased use of healthcare services. Additionally, physical limitations and cognitive impairment were identified as factors contributing to decreased social engagement. CONCLUSION: This review found that older people were embedded within a diverse network. The findings of this review emphasize the importance of recognizing and incorporating the diversity of social networks in care plans and policies to enhance the effectiveness of interventions and improve the overall well-being of older adults.

Variation in the estimated prevalence of multimorbidity: systematic review and meta-analysis of 193 international studies.

OBJECTIVE: (1) To estimate the pooled prevalence of multimorbidity in all age groups, globally. (2) To examine how measurement of multimorbidity impacted the estimated prevalence. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we conducted searches in nine bibliographic databases (PsycINFO, Embase, Global Health, Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global) for prevalence studies published between database inception and 21 January 2020. Studies reporting the prevalence of multimorbidity (in all age groups and in community, primary care, care home and hospital settings) were included. Studies with an index condition or those that did not include people with no long-term conditions in the denominator were excluded. Retrieved studies were independently reviewed by two reviewers, and relevant data were extracted using predesigned pro forma. We used meta-analysis to pool the estimated prevalence of multimorbidity across studies, and used random-effects meta-regression and subgroup analysis to examine the association of heterogeneous prevalence estimates with study and measure characteristics. RESULTS: 13 807 titles were screened, of which 193 met inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence of multimorbidity was 42.4% (95% CI 38.9% to 46.0%) with high heterogeneity (I2 >99%). In adjusted meta-regression models, participant mean age and the number of conditions included in a measure accounted for 47.8% of heterogeneity in effect sizes. The estimated prevalence of multimorbidity was significantly higher in studies with older adults and those that included larger numbers of conditions. There was no significant difference in estimated prevalence between low-income or middle-income countries (36.8%) and high-income countries (44.3%), or between self-report (40.0%) and administrative/clinical databases (52.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The pooled prevalence of multimorbidity was significantly higher in older populations and when studies included a larger number of baseline conditions. The findings suggest that, to improve study comparability and quality of reporting, future studies should use a common core conditions set for multimorbidity measurement and report multimorbidity prevalence stratified by sociodemographics.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020172409.

Examining variation in the measurement of multimorbidity in research: a systematic review of 566 studies.

BACKGROUND: A systematic understanding of how multimorbidity has been constructed and measured is unavailable. This review aimed to examine the definition and measurement of multimorbidity in peer-reviewed studies internationally. METHODS: We systematically reviewed studies on multimorbidity, via a search of nine bibliographic databases (Ovid [PsycINFO, Embase, Global Health, and MEDLINE], Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global), from inception to Jan 21, 2020. Reference lists and tracked citations of retrieved articles were hand-searched. Eligible studies were full-text articles measuring multimorbidity for any purpose in community, primary care, care home, or hospital populations receiving a non-specialist service. Abstracts, qualitative research, and case series were excluded. Two reviewers independently reviewed the retrieved studies with conflicts resolved by discussion or a third reviewer, and a single researcher extracted data from published papers. To assess our objectives of how multimorbidity has been measured and examine variation in the chronic conditions included (in terms of number and type), we used descriptive analysis (frequencies, cross-tabulation, and negative binomial regression) to summarise the characteristics of multimorbidity studies and measures (study setting, source of morbidity data, study population, primary study purpose, and multimorbidity measure type). This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD420201724090. FINDINGS: 566 studies were included in our review, of which 206 (36·4%) did not report a reference definition for multimorbidity and 73 (12·9%) did not report the conditions their measure included. The number of conditions included in measures ranged from two to 285 (median 17 [IQR 11-23). 452 (79·9%) studies reported types of condition within a single multimorbidity measure; most included at least one cardiovascular condition (441 [97·6%] of 452 studies), metabolic and endocrine condition (440 [97·3%]), respiratory condition (422 [93·4%]), musculoskeletal condition (396 [87·6%]), or mental health condition (355 [78·5%]) in their measure of multimorbidity. Chronic infections (123 [27·2%]), haematological conditions (110 [24·3%]), ear, nose, and throat conditions (107 [23·7%]), skin conditions (70 [15·5%]), oral conditions (19 [4·2%]), and congenital conditions (14 [3·1%]) were uncommonly included. Only eight individual conditions were included by more than half of studies in the multimorbidity measure used (diabetes, stroke, cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hypertension, coronary heart disease, chronic kidney disease, and heart failure), with individual mental health conditions under-represented. Of the 566 studies, 419 were rated to be of moderate risk of bias, 107 of high risk of bias, and 40 of low risk of bias according to the Effective Public Health Practice Project quality assessment tool. INTERPRETATION: Measurement of multimorbidity is poorly reported and highly variable. Consistent reporting of measure definitions should be required by journals, and consensus studies are needed to define core and study-dependent conditions to include in measures of multimorbidity. FUNDING: Health Data Research UK.

What do HIV-positive drug users' experiences tell us about their antiretroviral medication-taking? An international integrated literature review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: HIV-positive drug users' poor adherence to antiretroviral regimens can pose a significant and negative impact on individual and global health. This review aims to identify knowledge gaps and inconsistencies within the current evidence base and to measure HIV-positive drug users' adherence rates and the factors that influence their adherence. METHODS: A search of quantitative and qualitative studies in relation to HIV-positive drug users' adherence to antiretroviral treatment was performed using five databases: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstract (ASSIA), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline, Embase and PsycINFO (Ovid interface). Relevant studies were retrieved based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria stated in the review. Findings were compared, contrasted and synthesized to provide a coherent account of HIV-positive drug users' adherence rates and the factors that influence their adherence. RESULTS: The proportion of HIV-positive drug users who achieved ≥ 95% adherence across the studies varied widely, from 19.3 to 83.9%. Adherence rates changed over the course of HIV treatment. The factors that influenced adherence were reported as follows: stigmatization, motivation, active drug use, accessibility and conditionality of HIV and addiction care, side effects and complexity of treatment regimens, forgetfulness and non-incorporation of dosing times into daily schedules. CONCLUSIONS: HIV-positive drug users' medication-taking is a dynamic social process that requires health professionals to assess adherence to HIV treatment on a regular basis.