Innovative models of healthcare delivery: an umbrella review of reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To undertake a synthesis of evidence-based research for seven innovative models of care to inform the development of new hospitals. DESIGN: Umbrella review. SETTING: Interventions delivered inside and outside of acute care settings. PARTICIPANTS: Children and adults with one or more identified acute or chronic health conditions. DATA SOURCES: PsycINFO, Ovid MEDLINE and CINAHL. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinical indicators and mortality, healthcare utilisation, quality of life, self-management and self-care and patient knowledge. RESULTS: A total of 66 reviews were included, synthesising evidence from 1272 primary studies across the 7 models of care. Virtual care was the most common model studied, addressed by 47 (73%) of the reviews. Common outcomes evaluated across reviews were clinical indicators and mortality, healthcare utilisation, self-care and self-management, patient knowledge, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The findings indicate that the innovative models of healthcare we identified in this review may be effective in managing patients with a range of acute and chronic conditions. Most of the included reviews reported evidence of comparable or improved care. CONCLUSIONS: A consideration of local infrastructure and individual patient characteristics, such as health literacy, may be critical in determining the suitability of models of care for patients and their implementation in local health systems. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 10.17605/OSF.IO/PS6ZU.

Systematic review of 29 self-report instruments for assessing quality of life in older adults receiving aged care services.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QoL) outcomes are used to monitor quality of care for older adults accessing aged care services, yet it remains unclear which QoL instruments best meet older adults', providers' and policymakers' needs. This review aimed to (1) identify QoL instruments used in aged care and describe them in terms of QoL domains measured and logistical details; (2) summarise in which aged care settings the instruments have been used and (3) discuss factors to consider in deciding on the suitability of QoL instruments for use in aged care services. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library and CINAHL from inception to 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Instruments were included if they were designed for adults (>18 years), available in English, been applied in a peer-reviewed research study examining QoL outcomes in adults >65 years accessing aged care (including home/social care, residential/long-term care) and had reported psychometrics. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two researchers independently reviewed the measures and extracted the data. Data synthesis was performed via narrative review of eligible instruments. RESULTS: 292 articles reporting on 29 QoL instruments were included. Eight domains of QoL were addressed: physical health, mental health, emotional state, social connection, environment, autonomy and overall QoL. The period between 1990 and 2000 produced the greatest number of newly developed instruments. The EuroQoL-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) and Short Form-series were used across multiple aged care contexts including home and residential care. More recent instruments (eg, ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people (ICECAP-O) and Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit (ASCOT)) tend to capture emotional sentiment towards personal circumstances and higher order care needs, in comparison with more established instruments (eg, EQ-5D) which are largely focused on health status. CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive list of QoL instruments and their characteristics is provided to inform instrument choice for use in research or for care quality assurance in aged care settings, depending on needs and interests of users.

Identifying enablers and barriers to referral, uptake and completion of lifestyle modification programmes: a rapid literature review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify current, policy-relevant evidence about barriers and enablers associated with referral, uptake and completion of lifestyle modification programmes (LMPs) for secondary prevention of chronic disease in adults. DESIGN: A rapid review, co-designed with policymakers, of peer-reviewed and grey literature using a modified Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses framework. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched for relevant studies and literature reviews. Grey literature was identified through Advanced Google searching and targeted searching of international health departments' and non-government organisations' websites. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Documents published 2010-2020, from high-income countries, reporting on programmes that included referral of adults with chronic disease to an LMP by a health professional (HP). DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data from grey and peer-reviewed literature were extracted by two different reviewers. Extracted data were inductively coded around emergent themes. Regular meetings of the review group ensured consistency of study selection and synthesis. RESULTS: Twenty-nine documents were included: 14 grey literature, 11 empirical studies and four literature reviews. Key barriers to HPs referring patients included inadequate HP knowledge about LMPs, perceptions of poor effectiveness of LMPs and perceptions that referral to LMPs was not part of their role. Patient barriers to uptake and completion included poor accessibility and lack of support to engage with the LMPs. Enablers to HP referral included training/education, effective interdisciplinary communication and influential programme advocates. Support to engage with LMPs after HP referral, educational resources for family members and easy accessibility were key enablers to patient engagement with LMPs. CONCLUSIONS: Factors related to HPs' ability and willingness to make referrals are important for the implementation of LMPs, and need to be coupled with support for patients to engage with programmes after referral. These factors should be addressed when implementing LMPs to maximise their impact.