Understanding the use of co-design methods for research involving older adults living with HIV: A scoping review protocol.

There is a growing population of adults aged 50 years or older living with HIV, facing unique challenges in care due to age, minority status, and stigma. Co-design methodologies, aligning with patient-centered care, have potential for informing interventions addressing the complex needs of older adults with HIV. Despite challenges, co-design has shown promise in empowering older individuals to actively participate in shaping their care experiences. The scoping review outlined here aims to identify gaps in existing co-design work with this population, emphasizing the importance of inclusivity based on PROGRESS-Plus characteristics for future patient-oriented research. This scoping review protocol is informed by the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual to explore co-design methods in geriatric HIV care literature. The methodology encompasses six stages: 1) developing research questions, 2) creating a search strategy, 3) screening and selecting evidence, 4) data extraction, 5) data analysis using content analysis, and 6) consultation with key stakeholders, including community partners and individuals with lived experience. The review will involve a comprehensive literature search, including peer-reviewed databases and gray literature, to identify relevant studies conducted in the past 20 years. The inclusive criteria focus on empirical data related to co-design methods in HIV care for individuals aged 50 or older, aiming to inform future research and co-design studies in geriatric HIV care. The study will be limited by the exclusion of papers not published or translated to English. Additionally, the varied terminology used to describe co-design across different research may result in the exclusion of articles using alternative terms. The consultation with key stakeholders will be crucial for translating insights into meaningful co-design solutions for virtual HIV care, aiming to provide a comprehensive synthesis that informs evidence-based strategies and addresses disparities in geriatric HIV care.

Long-Term Outcomes of Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: The Resynchronization-Defibrillation for Ambulatory Heart Failure Trial (RAFT) showed a greater benefit with respect to mortality at 5 years among patients who received cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT) than among those who received implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). However, the effect of CRT on long-term survival is not known. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) class II or III heart failure, a left ventricular ejection fraction of 30% or less, and an intrinsic QRS duration of 120 msec or more (or a paced QRS duration of 200 msec or more) to receive either an ICD alone or a CRT defibrillator (CRT-D). We assessed long-term outcomes among patients at the eight highest-enrolling participating sites. The primary outcome was death from any cause; the secondary outcome was a composite of death from any cause, heart transplantation, or implantation of a ventricular assist device. RESULTS: The trial enrolled 1798 patients, of whom 1050 were included in the long-term survival trial; the median duration of follow-up for the 1050 patients was 7.7 years (interquartile range, 3.9 to 12.8), and the median duration of follow-up for those who survived was 13.9 years (interquartile range, 12.8 to 15.7). Death occurred in 405 of 530 patients (76.4%) assigned to the ICD group and in 370 of 520 patients (71.2%) assigned to the CRT-D group. The time until death appeared to be longer for those assigned to receive a CRT-D than for those assigned to receive an ICD (acceleration factor, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.69 to 0.92; P = 0.002). A secondary-outcome event occurred in 412 patients (77.7%) in the ICD group and in 392 (75.4%) in the CRT-D group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with a reduced ejection fraction, a widened QRS complex, and NYHA class II or III heart failure, the survival benefit associated with receipt of a CRT-D as compared with ICD appeared to be sustained during a median of nearly 14 years of follow-up. (RAFT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00251251.).