Interventions that have potential to help older adults living with social frailty: a systematic scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The impact of social frailty on older adults is profound including mortality risk, functional decline, falls, and disability. However, effective strategies that respond to the needs of socially frail older adults are lacking and few studies have unpacked how social determinants operate or how interventions can be adapted during periods requiring social distancing and isolation such as the COVID-19 pandemic. To address these gaps, we conducted a scoping review using JBI methodology to identify interventions that have the best potential to help socially frail older adults (age ≥65 years). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL (EPSCO), EMBASE and COVID-19 databases and the grey literature. Eligibility criteria were developed using the PICOS framework. Our results were summarized descriptively according to study, patient, intervention and outcome characteristics. Data synthesis involved charting and categorizing identified interventions using a social frailty framework.  RESULTS: Of 263 included studies, we identified 495 interventions involving ~124,498 older adults who were mostly female. The largest proportion of older adults (40.5%) had a mean age range of 70-79 years. The 495 interventions were spread across four social frailty domains: social resource (40%), self-management (32%), social behavioural activity (28%), and general resource (0.4%). Of these, 189 interventions were effective for improving loneliness, social and health and wellbeing outcomes across psychological self-management, self-management education, leisure activity, physical activity, Information Communication Technology and socially assistive robot interventions. Sixty-three interventions were identified as feasible to be adapted during infectious disease outbreaks (e.g., COVID-19, flu) to help socially frail older adults. CONCLUSIONS: Our scoping review identified promising interventions with the best potential to help older adults living with social frailty.

Engaging critically: exploring the varying roles of lived experience advisors in an implementation science study on management of opioid prescribing.

Involvement of individuals with lived experience, also called "patient partners", is a key element within implementation science, the study of how to put evidence into practice. While conducting a 4-year implementation study focused on improving physician management of opioid prescribing, our research team worked closely with Lived Experience Advisors (LEAs). LEAs were involved throughout the study, including developing patient-facing recruitment material, informing the analysis of results, and as a regular reminder of the real-world impact of this work. However, through regular critical reflection, we acknowledged that we were still uncertain how to articulate the impact of LEA involvement. As a team, we continually discussed why and how people with lived experience were involved in this study. We probed ill-defined concepts such as "patient perspective", which was particularly complex for a study focused on changing physician behaviour with indirect impact on patients. This critical reflection strengthened trust and rapport between team members (characteristics deemed essential to meaningful patient involvement), while underscoring the value of including concerted time to explore the muddier aspects of engagement. In short, patient engagement did not proceed as smoothly as planned. We advocate that "best practices" in the engagement of people with lived experience include regularly setting aside time outside of practical study tasks to interrogate complex aspects of patient engagement, including reflecting on how and why individuals with lived experience are involved.

Involvement of individuals with lived experience, also called "patient partners", is often a required element of applied research. Although there is a lot of guidance on how to engage individuals with lived experience, there is no single best-practice that always applies. Each team is different and must adapt to meet the needs of their study and team. While conducting a 4-year study focused on improving physician management of opioid prescribing, our research team worked closely with Lived Experience Advisors (LEAs). The LEAs were involved in developing patient-facing recruitment material, informing the analysis of results, and were a regular reminder of the real-world impact of this work. As a team, we continually discussed why and how individuals with lived experience were involved in this study and probed concepts such as "patient perspective", which is complex in a study focused on changing physician behaviour. Setting aside time to not just work on a task but to critically reflect and ask questions led to new insights into why and how we do this work. For example, one of the patient handouts that was co-designed with patients and praised by some physicians we interviewed, was found by LEAs to be objectifying and lacking nuance, which further highlighted how the same material can be received in different ways. Our discussions also helped build trust and rapport, which are characteristics deemed essential to meaningful patient involvement. We advocate for study teams to dedicate time to interrogate the less straightforward aspects of patient engagement. In other words - "embrace the messiness".