Community based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of community based complex interventions, grouped according to their intervention components, to sustain independence for older people. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 9 August 2021 and reference lists of included studies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials or cluster randomised controlled trials with ≥24 weeks' follow-up studying community based complex interventions for sustaining independence in older people (mean age ≥65 years) living at home, with usual care, placebo, or another complex intervention as comparators. MAIN OUTCOMES: Living at home, activities of daily living (personal/instrumental), care home placement, and service/economic outcomes at 12 months. DATA SYNTHESIS: Interventions were grouped according to a specifically developed typology. Random effects network meta-analysis estimated comparative effects; Cochrane's revised tool (RoB 2) structured risk of bias assessment. Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) network meta-analysis structured certainty assessment. RESULTS: The review included 129 studies (74 946 participants). Nineteen intervention components, including "multifactorial action from individualised care planning" (a process of multidomain assessment and management leading to tailored actions), were identified in 63 combinations. For living at home, compared with no intervention/placebo, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review and regular follow-ups (routine review) (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.59; moderate certainty); multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review without regular follow-ups (2.55, 0.61 to 10.60; low certainty); combined cognitive training, medication review, nutritional support, and exercise (1.93, 0.79 to 4.77; low certainty); and combined activities of daily living training, nutritional support, and exercise (1.79, 0.67 to 4.76; low certainty). Risk screening or the addition of education and self-management strategies to multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review may reduce odds of living at home. For instrumental activities of daily living, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (standardised mean difference 0.11, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.21; moderate certainty). Two interventions may reduce instrumental activities of daily living: combined activities of daily living training, aids, and exercise; and combined activities of daily living training, aids, education, exercise, and multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies. For personal activities of daily living, evidence favoured combined exercise, multifactorial action from individualised care planning, and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies (0.16, -0.51 to 0.82; low certainty). For homecare recipients, evidence favoured addition of multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (0.60, 0.32 to 0.88; low certainty). High risk of bias and imprecise estimates meant that most evidence was low or very low certainty. Few studies contributed to each comparison, impeding evaluation of inconsistency and frailty. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention most likely to sustain independence is individualised care planning including medicines optimisation and regular follow-up reviews resulting in multifactorial action. Homecare recipients may particularly benefit from this intervention. Unexpectedly, some combinations may reduce independence. Further research is needed to investigate which combinations of interventions work best for different participants and contexts. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019162195.

Development and external validation of the eFalls tool: a multivariable prediction model for the risk of ED attendance or hospitalisation with a fall or fracture in older adults.

BACKGROUND: Falls are common in older adults and can devastate personal independence through injury such as fracture and fear of future falls. Methods to identify people for falls prevention interventions are currently limited, with high risks of bias in published prediction models. We have developed and externally validated the eFalls prediction model using routinely collected primary care electronic health records (EHR) to predict risk of emergency department attendance/hospitalisation with fall or fracture within 1 year. METHODS: Data comprised two independent, retrospective cohorts of adults aged ≥65 years: the population of Wales, from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank (model development); the population of Bradford and Airedale, England, from Connected Bradford (external validation). Predictors included electronic frailty index components, supplemented with variables informed by literature reviews and clinical expertise. Fall/fracture risk was modelled using multivariable logistic regression with a Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator penalty. Predictive performance was assessed through calibration, discrimination and clinical utility. Apparent, internal-external cross-validation and external validation performance were assessed across general practices and in clinically relevant subgroups. RESULTS: The model's discrimination performance (c-statistic) was 0.72 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.68 to 0.76) on internal-external cross-validation and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.80 to 0.83) on external validation. Calibration was variable across practices, with some over-prediction in the validation population (calibration-in-the-large, -0.87; 95% CI: -0.96 to -0.78). Clinical utility on external validation was improved after recalibration. CONCLUSION: The eFalls prediction model shows good performance and could support proactive stratification for falls prevention services if appropriately embedded into primary care EHR systems.

New horizons in frailty identification via electronic frailty indices: early implementation lessons from experiences in England and the United States.

Frailty represents an integrative prognostic marker of risk that associates with a myriad of age-related adverse outcomes in older adults. As a concept, frailty can help to target scarce resources and identify subgroups of vulnerable older adults that may benefit from interventions or changes in medical management, such as pursing less aggressive glycaemic targets for frail older adults with diabetes. In practice, however, there are several operational challenges to implementing frailty screening outside the confines of geriatric medicine. Electronic frailty indices (eFIs) based on the theory of deficit accumulation, derived from routine data housed in the electronic health record, have emerged as a rapid, feasible and valid approach to screen for frailty at scale. The goal of this paper is to describe the early experience of three diverse groups in developing, implementing and adopting eFIs (The English National Health Service, US Department of Veterans Affairs and Atrium Health-Wake Forest Baptist). These groups span different countries and organisational complexity, using eFIs for both research and clinical care, and represent different levels of progress with clinical implementation. Using an implementation science framework, we describe common elements of successful implementation in these settings and set an agenda for future research and expansion of eFI-informed initiatives.

Behavioural activation to mitigate the psychological impacts of COVID-19 restrictions on older people in England and Wales (BASIL+): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Older adults were more likely to be socially isolated during the COVID-19 pandemic, with increased risk of depression and loneliness. We aimed to investigate whether a behavioural activation intervention delivered via telephone could mitigate depression and loneliness in at-risk older people during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: BASIL+ (Behavioural Activation in Social Isolation) was a pragmatic randomised controlled trial conducted among patients recruited from general practices in England and Wales, and was designed to assess the effectiveness of behavioural activation in mitigating depression and loneliness among older people during the COVID-19 pandemic. Eligible participants were aged 65 years and older, socially isolated, with a score of 5 or higher on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), and had multiple long-term conditions. Participants were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention (behavioural activation) or control groups by use of simple randomisation without stratification. Behavioural activation was delivered by telephone; participants were offered up to eight weekly sessions with trained BASIL+ Support Workers. Behavioural activation was adapted to maintain social connections and encourage socially reinforcing activities. Participants in the control group received usual care with existing COVID-19 wellbeing resources. The primary clinical outcome was self-reported depression severity, assessed by the PHQ-9, at 3 months. Outcomes were assessed masked to allocation and analysis was by treatment allocation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN63034289). FINDINGS: Between Feb 8, 2021, and Feb 28, 2022, 449 eligible participants were identified and 435 from 26 general practices were recruited and randomly assigned (1:1) to the behavioural activation intervention (n=218) or to the control group (usual care with signposting; n=217). The mean age of participants was 75·7 years (SD 6·7); 270 (62·1%) of 435 participants were female, and 418 (96·1%) were White. Participants in the intervention group attended an average of 5·2 (SD 2·9) of eight remote behavioural activation sessions. The adjusted mean difference in PHQ-9 scores between the control and intervention groups at 3 months was -1·65 (95% CI -2·54 to -0·75, p=0·0003). No adverse events were reported that were attributable to the behavioural activation intervention. INTERPRETATION: Behavioural activation is an effective and potentially scalable intervention that can reduce symptoms of depression and emotional loneliness in at-risk groups in the short term. The findings of this trial add to the range of strategies to improve the mental health of older adults with multiple long-term conditions. These results can be helpful to policy makers beyond the pandemic in reducing the global burden of depression and addressing the health impacts of loneliness, particularly in at-risk groups. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Designing Community Services for People With Borderline Personality Disorder to Reduce Hospitalizations.

Previous evaluations of interventions for borderline personality disorder have focused on psychotherapies. This study (N=42 patients), conducted in Liverpool, United Kingdom, reviewed the effect on out-of-area treatments (OATs) and hospital admissions of establishing a local case management team and a combined day treatment and crisis service for patients who are too dysregulated to access typical office-based psychotherapy. Data from 12, 24, and 36 months postintervention were compared with baseline data. All patients in OATs were repatriated to the local community. No new patients were sent to OATs. Admissions decreased (at 12 months, 49%; 24 months, 64%; 36 months, 74%), achieving savings in hospitalization costs. Moderate increases in the use and costs of some other services were observed.

What are the priorities for research of older people living in their own home, including those living with frailty? A systematic review and content analysis of studies reporting older people's priorities and unmet needs.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence regarding the needs of older people, including those living with frailty, to inform research priority setting. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review aimed to identify the range of research priorities of community-dwelling older people living in their own home, including those living with frailty. METHODS: Included studies were from economically developed countries and designed to identify the priorities for research or unmet needs of community-dwelling older people. Studies were excluded if they described priorities relating to specific health conditions. Medline, Embase, PsycInfo and CINAHL were searched (January 2010-June 2022), alongside grey literature. Study quality was assessed, but studies were not excluded on the basis of quality. A bespoke data extraction form was used and content analysis undertaken to synthesise findings. RESULTS: Seventy-five reports were included. Seven explicitly aimed to identify the priorities or unmet needs of frail older people; 68 did not specify frailty as a characteristic. Study designs varied, including priority setting exercises, surveys, interviews, focus groups and literature reviews. Identified priorities and unmet needs were organised into themes: prevention and management, improving health and care service provision, improving daily life, meeting carers' needs and planning ahead. DISCUSSION: Many priority areas were raised by older people, carers and health/care professionals, but few were identified explicitly by/for frail older people. An overarching need was identified for tailored, collaborative provision of care and support. CONCLUSION: Review findings provide a valuable resource for researchers and health/care staff wishing to focus their research or service provision on areas of importance for older people.

Non-pharmacological interventions for the reduction and maintenance of blood pressure in people with prehypertension: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Prehypertension is defined as blood pressure that is above the normal range but not high enough to be classed as hypertension. Prehypertension is a warning of development of hypertension as well as a risk for cardiovascular disease, heart attack and stroke. In the UK, non-pharmacological interventions are recommended for prehypertension management but no reviews have focused on the effectiveness of these types of interventions solely in people with prehypertension. Therefore, the proposed systematic review will assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in reducing or maintaining blood pressure in prehypertensive people. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This systematic review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The databases/trial registries that will be searched to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and economic evaluations include Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Library, Scopus and the International HTA Database. Search terms have been identified by the team including an information specialist. Three reviewers will be involved in the study selection process. Risk of bias will be evaluated using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for RCTs and the Consensus Health Economic Criteria list for economic evaluations. Findings from the included studies will be tabulated and synthesised narratively. Heterogeneity will be assessed through visual inspection of forest plots and the calculation of the χ2 and I2 statistics and causes of heterogeneity will be assessed where sufficient data are available. If possible, we plan to investigate differential effects on specific subgroups and from different types of interventions using meta-regression. Where relevant, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) will be used to assess the certainty of the evidence found. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not needed. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, disseminated via the wider study website and shared with the study sites and participants. REGISTRATION DETAILS: The review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD420232433047).

PeRsOnaliSed care Planning for oldER people with frailty (PROSPER): protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is common in older age and is characterised by loss of biological reserves across multiple organ systems. These changes associated with frailty mean older people can be vulnerable to sudden, dramatic changes in health because of relatively small problems. Older people with frailty are at increased risk of adverse outcomes including disability, hospitalisation, and care home admission, with associated reduction in quality of life and increased NHS and social care costs. Personalised Care Planning offers an anticipatory, preventative approach to supporting older adults to live independently for longer, but it has not been robustly evaluated in a population of older adults with frailty. METHODS: Following an initial feasibility study, this multi-centre, individually randomised controlled trial aims to establish whether personalised care planning for older people improves health-related quality of life. It will recruit 1337 participants from general practices across Yorkshire and Humber and Mid-Mersey in the North of England. Eligible patients will be aged 65 and over with an electronic frailty index score of 0.21 or above, living in their own homes, without severe cognitive impairment and not in receipt of end-of-life care. Following confirmation of eligibility, informed consent and baseline data collection, participants will be individually randomised to the PeRsOnaliSed care Planning for oldER people with frailty (PROSPER) intervention or usual care in a 2.6:1 allocation ratio. Participants will not be blinded to allocation, but data collection and analysis will be blinded. The intervention will be delivered over 12 weeks by a Personal Independence Co-ordinator worker based within a voluntary sector organisation, Age UK. The primary outcomes are health-related quality of life, measured using both the physical and mental components of the Short-Form 12 Item Health Questionnaire at 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes comprise activities of daily living, self-management capabilities and loneliness, admission to care homes, hospitalisations, and health and social care resource use at 12 months post randomisation. Parallel cost-effectiveness and process evaluations will be conducted alongside the trial. DISCUSSION: The PROSPER study will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a personalised care planning approach for older people with frailty and inform the process of its implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16123291 .  Registered on  28 August 2020.

Older Adults' Perspectives of Independence Through Time: Results of a Longitudinal Interview Study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Understanding how older people experience independence has implications for person-centered care. Existing understanding of older people's experience of independence, generated through methods that provide a "snapshot" view of a person's independence at a given time point, provides little insight into the process of maintaining independence through time. The aim of this study was to explore older participants' perceptions to understand the processes and resources that were most important for maintaining independence. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Two semistructured interviews were conducted longitudinally to explore the perspectives of 12 community-dwelling, older people, aged 76-85 years. A social constructivist approach, using dramaturgical and descriptive codes, facilitated the interpretation of the data. Sixteen analytical questions guided the exploration of participants' perceptions of independence through time. RESULTS: Older people suggested that objective representations underestimated, and omitted, important aspects of their independence through time. Some participants perceived "snapshot" judgments of their independence as insensitive to their individual values and context. Change over time required some participants to adapt their methods for maintaining independence. The stability of participants' sense of independence was value dependent and informed by the purpose a participant ascribed to maintaining independence. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This study augments the understanding of independence as a complex and multifaceted construct. The findings challenge the congruence of common interpretations of independence with older people's views, showing areas of commonality, and discrepancy. Exploration of independence in terms of form and function provides an important understanding of how function takes precedence to form in determining the maintenance of independence through time.

Mapping review of pain management programmes and psychological therapies for community-dwelling older people living with pain.

PURPOSE: Persistent pain is common in older people and people living with frailty. Pain or the impact of pain on everyday life is potentially modifiable. We sought to map research evidence and information from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of pain management programmes and psychological therapies targeting community-dwelling older people, and explore appropriate strategies and interventions for managing or reducing the negative impact of pain for older people, particularly those with frailty. METHOD: A mapping review of pain management programmes and psychological therapies for community-dwelling older people living with chronic pain. We searched for systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and for individual randomised controlled trials and extracted data from eligible studies. RESULTS: Searches resulted in 3419 systematic review records and 746 RCT records from which there were 33 eligible interventions identified in 31 eligible RCTs (48 reports). Broad aims of the interventions were to: improve physical, psychological, or social functioning; adjust the effects or sensation of pain psychologically; enhance self-care with self-management skills or knowledge. Common mechanisms of change proposed were self-efficacy enhanced by self-management tasks and skills, using positive psychological skills or refocusing attention to improve responses to pain, and practising physical exercises to improve physiological well-being and reduce restrictions from pain. Content of interventions included: skills training and activity management, education, and physical exercise. Interventions were delivered in person or remotely to individuals or in groups, typically in 1-2 sessions weekly over 5-12 weeks. CONCLUSION: All the evaluated interventions appeared to show potential to provide some benefits to older people. None of the included studies assessed frailty. However, some of the included interventions appear appropriate for community-dwelling older people living with both frailty and pain.

Evaluating methods of detecting and determining the type of urinary incontinence in adults after stroke: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Urinary incontinence (UI) affects over half of people with stroke. It is unclear which methods are accurate in assessing presence and type of UI to inform clinical management. Diagnosis of UI based on inaccurate methods may lead to unnecessary interventions. The aims of this systematic review were to identify, for adults with stroke, clinically accurate methods to determine the presence of UI and type of UI. METHOD: We searched seven electronic databases and additional conference proceedings. To be included, studies had to be primary research comparing two or more methods, or use a reference test. RESULTS: We identified 3846 studies with eight eligible for inclusion. We identified 11 assessment methods within the eight studies. Only five studies had sufficient comparator data for synthesis. Due to heterogeneity of data, results on the following methods were narratively synthesized: Core Lower Urinary Tract Symptom Score (CLSS), clinical history and physical examination, Barthel Activities of Daily Living Index, International Consultation Incontinence Questionnaire Short Form (ICiQ-SF) and urodynamic studies (UDS). Most studies were small and of low to medium quality. All reported differences in sensitivity, and none compared the same assessment methods. CONCLUSION: Current evidence is insufficient to support recommendations on the most accurate UI assessment for adults with stroke. Further research is needed.

Methods for using Bing's AI-powered search engine for data extraction for a systematic review.

Data extraction is a time-consuming and resource-intensive task in the systematic review process. Natural language processing (NLP) artificial intelligence (AI) techniques have the potential to automate data extraction saving time and resources, accelerating the review process, and enhancing the quality and reliability of extracted data. In this paper, we propose a method for using Bing AI and Microsoft Edge as a second reviewer to verify and enhance data items first extracted by a single human reviewer. We describe a worked example of the steps involved in instructing the Bing AI Chat tool to extract study characteristics as data items from a PDF document into a table so that they can be compared with data extracted manually. We show that this technique may provide an additional verification process for data extraction where there are limited resources available or for novice reviewers. However, it should not be seen as a replacement to already established and validated double independent data extraction methods without further evaluation and verification. Use of AI techniques for data extraction in systematic reviews should be transparently and accurately described in reports. Future research should focus on the accuracy, efficiency, completeness, and user experience of using Bing AI for data extraction compared with traditional methods using two or more reviewers independently.

Psychological interventions for weight reduction and sustained weight reduction in adults with overweight and obesity: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Overweight and obesity are growing public health problems worldwide. Both diet and physical activity have been the primary interventions for weight reduction over the past decade. With increasing rates of overweight and obesity, it is evident that a primary focus on diet and exercise has not resulted in sustained obesity reduction within the global population. There is now a case to explore other weight management strategies, focusing on psychological factors that may underpin overweight and obesity. Psychological therapy interventions are gaining recognition for their effectiveness in addressing underlying emotional factors and promoting weight loss. However, there is a dearth of literature that has mapped the types of psychological interventions and the characteristics of these interventions as a means of achieving weight reduction and sustained weight reduction in adults with overweight or obesity. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review will combine the methodology outlined by Arksey and O'Malley with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. A total of six databases will be searched using a comprehensive search strategy. Intervention studies will be included if participants are 18 years and over, classified as overweight or obese (body mass index ≥25 kg/m2), and have received a psychological therapy intervention. The review will exclude studies that are not available in English, not full text, none peer reviewed or combine a lifestyle and/or pharmacological intervention with a psychological intervention. Data will be synthesised using a narrative synthesis approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required to conduct this scoping review. The findings will be disseminated through journal publication(s), social media and a lay summary for key stakeholders.

New Horizons in artificial intelligence in the healthcare of older people.

Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare describes algorithm-based computational techniques which manage and analyse large datasets to make inferences and predictions. There are many potential applications of AI in the care of older people, from clinical decision support systems that can support identification of delirium from clinical records to wearable devices that can predict the risk of a fall. We held four meetings of older people, clinicians and AI researchers. Three priority areas were identified for AI application in the care of older people. These included: monitoring and early diagnosis of disease, stratified care and care coordination between healthcare providers. However, the meetings also highlighted concerns that AI may exacerbate health inequity for older people through bias within AI models, lack of external validation amongst older people, infringements on privacy and autonomy, insufficient transparency of AI models and lack of safeguarding for errors. Creating effective interventions for older people requires a person-centred approach to account for the needs of older people, as well as sufficient clinical and technological governance to meet standards of generalisability, transparency and effectiveness. Education of clinicians and patients is also needed to ensure appropriate use of AI technologies, with investment in technological infrastructure required to ensure equity of access.

Enabling health and maintaining independence for older people at home (HomeHealth trial): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: NHS frailty services commonly target more severely frail older people, despite evidence suggesting frailty can be prevented or reversed when addressed at an earlier stage. HomeHealth is a new home-based, manualised voluntary sector service supporting older people with mild frailty to maintain their independence through behaviour change. Over six appointments, a trained HomeHealth worker discusses what matters to the older person and supports them to set and achieve goals around mobility, nutrition, socialising and/or psychological wellbeing. The service showed promising effects in a feasibility trial. We aimed to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of HomeHealth for maintaining independence in older people with mild frailty compared with treatment as usual. METHODS: In this single-blind multicentre randomised controlled trial, we recruited community-dwelling older people aged 65 years or older with mild frailty from 27 general practices, community groups and sheltered housing in London, Yorkshire, and Hertfordshire. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either HomeHealth monthly for 6 months or treatment as usual (usual GP and outpatient care, no specific frailty services). Our primary outcome was independence in activities of daily living, measured by blinded outcome assessors using the modified Barthel Index, and analysed using linear mixed models, including 6-month and 12-month data and controlling for baseline Barthel score and site. The study was approved by the Social Care Research Ethics Committee, and all participants provided written or orally recorded informed consent. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN54268283. FINDINGS: This trial took place between Jan 18, 2021, and July 4, 2023. We recruited 388 participants (mean age 81·4 years; 64% female [n=250], 94% White British/European [n=364], 2·5% Asian [n=10], 1·5% Black [n=6], 2·0% other [n=8]). We achieved high retention for 6-month follow-up (89%, 345/388), 12-month follow-up (86%, 334/388), and medical notes data (89%, 347/388). 182 (93%) of 195 participants in the intervention group completed the intervention, attending a mean of 5·6 appointments. HomeHealth had no effect on Barthel Index scores at 12 months (mean difference 0·250, 95% CI -0·932 to 1·432). At 6 months, there was a small reduction in psychological distress (-1·237, -2·127 to -0·348) and frailty (-0·124, -0·232 to -0·017), and at 12 months, we found small positive effects on wellbeing (1·449, 0·124 to 2·775) in those receiving HomeHealth. Other outcomes in analysis to date showed no significant difference. Health economic outcomes (including quality of life, capability, health services use and care needs or burden) are pending. INTERPRETATION: This high-quality trial showed that HomeHealth did not maintain independence in older people with mild frailty, and had limited effects upon secondary outcomes. Future studies need to explore different ways to promote health in this population. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA).

Interventions for reducing anticholinergic medication burden in older adults-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Anticholinergic medications block the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the brain and peripheral nervous system. Many medications have anticholinergic properties, and the cumulative effect of these medications is termed anticholinergic burden. Increased anticholinergic burden can have short-term side effects such as dry mouth, blurred vision and urinary retention as well as long-term effects including dementia, worsening physical function and falls. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review (SR) with meta-analysis (MA) looking at randomised controlled trials addressing interventions to reduce anticholinergic burden in older adults. RESULTS: We identified seven papers suitable for inclusion in our SR and MA. Interventions included multi-disciplinary involvement in medication reviews and deprescribing of AC medications. Pooled data revealed no significant difference in outcomes between control and intervention group for falls (OR = 0.76, 95% CI: 0.52-1.11, n = 647), cognition (mean difference = 1.54, 95% CI: -0.04 to 3.13, n = 405), anticholinergic burden (mean difference = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.18, n = 710) or quality of life (mean difference = 0.04, 95% CI: -0.04 to 0.12, n = 461). DISCUSSION: Overall, there was no significant difference with interventions to reduce anticholinergic burden. As we did not see a significant change in anticholinergic burden scores following interventions, it is likely other outcomes would not change. Short follow-up time and lack of training and support surrounding successful deprescribing may have contributed.

The extent of anticholinergic burden across an older Welsh population living with frailty: cross-sectional analysis of general practice records.

BACKGROUND: Anticholinergic medicines are associated with adverse outcomes for older people. However, little is known about their use in frailty. The objectives were to (i) investigate the prevalence of anticholinergic prescribing for older patients, and (ii) examine anticholinergic burden according to frailty status. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of Welsh primary care data from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage databank including patients aged ≥65 at their first GP consultation between 1 January and 31 December 2018. Frailty was identified using the electronic Frailty Index and anticholinergic burden using the Anticholinergic Cognitive Burden (ACB) scale. Descriptive analysis and logistic regression were conducted to (i) describe the type and frequency of anticholinergics prescribed; and (ii) to estimate the association between frailty and cumulative ACB score (ACB-Sum). RESULTS: In this study of 529,095 patients, 47.4% of patients receiving any prescription medications were prescribed at least one anticholinergic medicine. Adjusted regression analysis showed that patients with increasing frailty had higher odds of having an ACB-Sum of >3 compared with patients who were fit (mild frailty, adj OR 1.062 (95%CI 1.061-1.064), moderate frailty, adj OR 1.134 (95%CI 1.131-1.136), severe frailty, adj OR 1.208 (95%CI 1.203-1.213)). CONCLUSIONS: Anticholinergic prescribing was high in this older population. Older people with advancing frailty are exposed to the highest anticholinergic burden despite being the most vulnerable to the associated adverse effects. Older people with advancing frailty should be considered for medicines review to prevent overaccumulation of anticholinergic medications, given the risks of functional and cognitive decline that frailty presents.

Developing the evidence and associated service models to support older adults living with frailty to manage their pain and to reduce its impact on their lives: protocol for a mixed-method, co-design study (The POPPY Study).

INTRODUCTION: The Pain in Older People with Frailty Study is a mixed-method, co-design study, which aims to develop the content, implementation strategies, service and professional guidance to support older adults with frailty to manage their pain. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study has four phases: Phase 1, research evidence and information synthesis from randomised controlled trials of multicomponent pain management programmes and psychological therapies for community-dwelling older adults. Phase 2, qualitative interviews with 30 community-dwelling older adults (≥75 years) living with frailty and persistent pain, including dyadic interviews with a spouse or unpaid carer. Phase 3, qualitative interviews with healthcare professionals (HCPs) working within various pain service types; 5-8 HCPs per service and up to 12 services including primary care, secondary care, tertiary centres and services with voluntary sector input. Phase 4, co-design workshops with older adults, HCPs and commissioners. Inclusion criteria (Phase 2): community-dwelling older adults (≥75 years) living with frailty and persistent pain. Exclusion criteria (Phase 2): care home residents, a dementia or cancer diagnosis. Cancer survivors, ≥5 years cancer free, and not undergoing active cancer treatment can participate. Analysis for Phase 1 will use narrative synthesis, Phase 2 will use grounded theory analysis and Phase 3 will use thematic analysis. Oversight is provided from a patient and public involvement group and an independent steering committee. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol was approved by Leeds-East Research Ethics Committee on 28 April 2022 (22/YH/0080). Consent is sought if an individual is willing to participate (Phases 2-4) and has capacity. Findings will be disseminated at conferences, in newsletters and journals and to local authorities and charities.

Risk-of-bias assessment using Cochrane's revised tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was useful but challenging and resource-intensive: observations from a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To report our experience using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Two reviewers independently applied RoB 2 to results of interest in a large systematic review of complex interventions and reached consensus. We recorded the time taken, and noted and discussed our difficulties using the tool, and the resolutions we adopted. We explored the time taken with regression analysis and summarized our experience of implementing the tool. RESULTS: We assessed risk of bias in 860 results of interest in 113 studies. Staff resource averaged 358 minutes per study (SD 183). Number of results (ß = 22) and reports (ß = 14) per study and experience of the team (ß = -6) significantly affected assessment time. To implement the tool consistently, we developed cut points for missingness and considerations of balance regarding missingness, assumed some concerns with intervention deviations unless otherwise prevented or investigated, some concerns with measurements from unblinded self-reporting participants, and judged low risk of selection for certain dichotomous outcomes despite the absence of an analysis plan. CONCLUSION: The RoB 2 tool and guidance are useful but resource-intensive and challenging to implement. Critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should detail risk of bias implementation. Improved guidance focusing on implementation could assist reviewers.