Recent innovations in long-term care coverage and financing: a rapid scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify, chart and analyse the literature on recent initiatives to improve long-term care (LTC) coverage, financial protection and financial sustainability for persons aged 60 and older. DESIGN: Rapid scoping review. DATA SOURCES: Four databases and four sources of grey literature were searched for reports published between 2017 and 2022. After using a supervised machine learning tool to rank titles and abstracts, two reviewers independently screened sources against inclusion criteria. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies published from 2017-2022 in any language that captured recent LTC initiatives for people aged 60 and older, involved evaluation and directly addressed financing were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted using a form designed to answer the review questions and analysed using descriptive qualitative content analysis, with data categorised according to a prespecified framework to capture the outcomes of interest. RESULTS: Of 24 reports, 22 were published in peer-reviewed journals, and two were grey literature sources. Study designs included quasi-experimental study, policy analysis or comparison, qualitative description, comparative case study, cross-sectional study, systematic literature review, economic evaluation and survey. Studies addressed coverage based on the level of disability, income, rural/urban residence, employment and citizenship. Studies also addressed financial protection, including out-of-pocket (OOP) expenditures, copayments and risk of poverty related to costs of care. The reports addressed challenges to financial sustainability such as lack of service coordination and system integration, insufficient economic development and inadequate funding models. CONCLUSIONS: Initiatives where LTC insurance is mandatory and accompanied by commensurate funding are situated to facilitate ageing in place. Efforts to expand population coverage are common across the initiatives, with the potential for wider economic benefits. Initiatives that enable older people to access the services needed while avoiding OOP-induced poverty contribute to improved health and well-being. Preserving health in older people longer may alleviate downstream costs and contribute to financial sustainability.

Comparative-effectiveness research of COVID-19 treatment: a rapid scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has stimulated growing research on treatment options. We aim to provide an overview of the characteristics of studies evaluating COVID-19 treatment. DESIGN: Rapid scoping review DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase and biorxiv/medrxiv from inception to 15 May 2021. SETTING: Hospital and community care. PARTICIPANTS: COVID-19 patients of all ages. INTERVENTIONS: COVID-19 treatment. RESULTS: The literature search identified 616 relevant primary studies of which 188 were randomised controlled trials and 299 relevant evidence syntheses. The studies and evidence syntheses were conducted in 51 and 39 countries, respectively.Most studies enrolled patients admitted to acute care hospitals (84%), included on average 169 participants, with an average age of 60 years, study duration of 28 days, number of effect outcomes of four and number of harm outcomes of one. The most common primary outcome was death (32%).The included studies evaluated 214 treatment options. The most common treatments were tocilizumab (11%), hydroxychloroquine (9%) and convalescent plasma (7%). The most common therapeutic categories were non-steroidal immunosuppressants (18%), steroids (15%) and antivirals (14%). The most common therapeutic categories involving multiple drugs were antimalarials/antibiotics (16%), steroids/non-steroidal immunosuppressants (9%) and antimalarials/antivirals/antivirals (7%). The most common treatments evaluated in systematic reviews were hydroxychloroquine (11%), remdesivir (8%), tocilizumab (7%) and steroids (7%).The evaluated treatment was in favour 50% and 36% of the evaluations, according to the conclusion of the authors of primary studies and evidence syntheses, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This rapid scoping review characterised a growing body of comparative-effectiveness primary studies and evidence syntheses. The results suggest future studies should focus on children, elderly ≥65 years of age, patients with mild symptoms, outpatient treatment, multimechanism therapies, harms and active comparators. The results also suggest that future living evidence synthesis and network meta-analysis would provide additional information for decision-makers on managing COVID-19.

Preventing the transmission of COVID-19 and other coronaviruses in older adults aged 60 years and above living in long-term care: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this review was to examine the current guidelines for infection prevention and control (IPAC) of coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) or other coronaviruses in adults 60 years or older living in long-term care facilities (LTCF). METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane library, pre-print servers, clinical trial registries, and relevant grey literature sources were searched until July 31, 2020, using database searching and an automated method called Continuous Active Learning® (CAL®). All search results were processed using CAL® to identify the most likely relevant citations that were then screened by a single human reviewer. Full-text screening, data abstraction, and quality appraisal were completed by a single reviewer and verified by a second. RESULTS: Nine clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) were included. The most common recommendation in the CPGs was establishing surveillance and monitoring systems followed by mandating the use of PPE; physically distancing or cohorting residents; environmental cleaning and disinfection; promoting hand and respiratory hygiene among residents, staff, and visitors; and providing sick leave compensation for staff. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests robust surveillance and monitoring along with support for IPAC initiatives are key to preventing the spread of COVID-19 in LTCF. However, there are significant gaps in the current recommendations especially with regard to the movement of staff between LTCF and their role as possible transmission vectors. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020181993.