Search

Introduction Community-based services to sustain independence for older people have varying configurations. A typology of these interventions would improve service provision and research by providing conceptual clarity and enabling the identification of effective configurations. We aimed to produce such a typology. Method We developed our typology by qualitatively synthesising community-based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people, evaluated in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), in four stages: (i) systematically identifying relevant RCTs; (ii) extracting descriptions of interventions (including control) using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication; (iii) generating categories of key intervention features and (iv) grouping the interventions based on these categories. PROSPERO registration: CRD42019162195. Results Our search identified 129 RCTs involving 266 intervention arms. The Community-based complex Interventions to sustain Independence in Older People (CII-OP) typology comprises 14 action components and 5 tailoring components. Action components include procedures for treating patients or otherwise intended to directly improve their outcomes; regular examples include formal homecare; physical exercise; health education; activities of daily living training; providing aids and adaptations and nutritional support. Tailoring components involve a process that may result in care planning, with multiple action components being planned, recommended or prescribed. Multifactorial action from care planning was the most common tailoring component. It involves individualised, multidomain assessment and management, as in comprehensive geriatric assessment. Sixty-three different intervention types (combinations) were identified. Conclusions Our typology provides an empirical basis for service planning and evidence synthesis. We recommend better reporting about organisational aspects of interventions and usual care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of the study was to reach consensus on modifiable risk factors for a novel system of care to address Manifestations of Frailty in hospitalized older adults. Design: Consensus study. Method: A modified nominal group technique, incorporating expert group face‐to‐face interaction, review of existing evidence and pre/post‐meeting questionnaire completion was undertaken November 2019–February 2020. Results: Seventy‐one risk factors, within seven risk factor domains (pain, medication, fluid and nutrition intake, mobility, elimination, infection, additional patient factors) were considered. It was agreed that 44 risk factors incorporating patient, organizational and environmental risk factors were modifiable and should be included in a novel system of care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sedentary behaviour (SB) is associated with negative health outcomes and is prevalent post-stroke. This study explored SB after stroke from the perspective of stroke service staff. Qualitative mixed-methods study. Non-participant observations in two stroke services (England/Scotland) and semi-structured interviews with staff underpinned by the COM-B model of behaviour change. Observations were analysed thematically; interviews were analysed using the Framework approach. One hundred and thirty-two observation hours (October - December 2017), and 31 staff interviewed (January –June 2018). Four themes were identified: (1) Opportunities for staff to support stroke survivors to reduce SB; (2) Physical and psychological capability of staff to support stroke survivors to reduce SB; (3) Motivating factors influencing staff behaviour to support stroke survivors to reduce SB; (4) Staff suggestions for a future intervention to support stroke survivors to reduce SB. Staff are aware of the consequences of prolonged sitting but did not relate to SB. Explicit knowledge of SB was limited. Staff need training to support stroke survivors to reduce SB. Sedentary behaviour in the community was not reported to change markedly, highlighting the need to engage stroke survivors in movement from when capable in hospital, following through to home. Stroke survivor sedentary behaviour is influenced, directly and indirectly, by the actions and instructions of stroke service staff in the inpatient and community setting. The built and social environment, both in the inpatient and community settings, may limit opportunities for safe movement and can result in stroke survivors spending more time sedentary. Stroke service staff appreciate the benefit of encouraging stroke survivors to stand and move more, if it is safe for them to do so. Staff would be amenable to encourage stroke survivors to reduce sedentary behaviour, provided they have the knowledge and resources to equip them to support this. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: To explore the experiences of older people and ward staff to identify modifiable factors (risk factors) which have the potential to reduce development or exacerbation of manifestations of frailty during hospitalization. To develop a theoretical framework of modifiable risk factors. Design: Qualitative descriptive study. Methods: Qualitative interviews with recently discharged older people (n = 18) and focus groups with ward staff (n = 22) were undertaken between July and October 2019. Data were analysed using directed content analysis. Results: Themes identified related to attitude to risk, communication and, loss of routine, stimulation and confidence. Using findings from this study and previously identified literature, we developed a theoretical framework including 67 modifiable risk factors. Risk factors are grouped by patient risk factor domains (pain, medication, nutritional/fluid intake, mobility, elimination, infection, additional patient risk factors) and linked care management sub‐domains (including risk factors relating to the ward environment, process of care, ward culture or broader organizational set up). Many of the additional 36 risk factors identified by this study were related to care management sub‐domains. Conclusion: A co‐ordinated approach is needed to address modifiable risk factors which lead to the development or exacerbation of manifestations of frailty in hospitalized older people. Risk assessment and management practices should not be duplicative and, should recognize and address modifiable risk factors which occur at the ward and organizational level. Impact: Some older people leave hospital more dependent than when they come in and this is, in part, due to the environment and process of care and not just the severity of their presenting illness. Many of the risk factors identified need to be addressed at an organizational rather than individual level. Findings will inform a programme of research to develop and test a novel system of care aimed at preventing loss of independence in hospitalized older people. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Care home (CH) residents are mainly inactive, leading to increased dependency and low mood. Strategies to improve activity are required. Design and setting Cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial with embedded process and health economic evaluations. Twelve residential CHs in Yorkshire, United Kingdom, were randomised to the MoveMore intervention plus usual care (UC) (n  = 5) or UC only (n  = 7). Participants Permanent residents aged ≥65 years. Intervention MoveMore: a whole home intervention involving all CH staff designed to encourage and support increase in movement of residents. Objectives and measurements Feasibility objectives relating to recruitment, intervention delivery, data collection and follow-up and safety concerns informed the feasibility of progression to a definitive trial. Data collection at baseline, 3, 6 and 9 months included: participants' physical function and mobility, perceived health, mood, quality of life, cognitive impairment questionnaires; accelerometry; safety data; intervention implementation. Results 300 residents were screened; 153 were registered (62 MoveMore; 91 UC). Average cluster size: MoveMore: 12.4 CHs; UC: 13.0 CHs. There were no CH/resident withdrawals. Forty (26.1%) participants were unavailable for follow-up: 28 died (12 MoveMore; 16 UC); 12 moved from the CH. Staff informant/proxy data collection for participants was >80%; data collection from participants was <75%; at 9 months, 65.6% of residents provided valid accelerometer data; two CHs fully, two partially and one failed to implement the intervention. There were no safety concerns. Conclusions Recruiting CHs and residents was feasible. Intervention implementation and data collection methods need refinement before a definitive trial. There were no safety concerns. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sustaining independence is important for older people, but there is insufficient guidance about which community health and care services to implement., Objectives: To synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of community services to sustain independence for older people grouped according to their intervention components, and to examine if frailty moderates the effect., Review Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis., Eligibility Criteria: Studies: Randomised controlled trials or cluster-randomised controlled trials. Participants: Older people (mean age 65+) living at home. Interventions: community-based complex interventions for sustaining independence. Comparators: usual care, placebo or another complex intervention., Main Outcomes: Living at home, instrumental activities of daily living, personal activities of daily living, care-home placement and service/economic outcomes at 1 year., Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE (1946-), Embase (1947-), CINAHL (1972-), PsycINFO (1806-), CENTRAL and trial registries from inception to August 2021, without restrictions, and scanned reference lists., Review Methods: Interventions were coded, summarised and grouped. Study populations were classified by frailty. A random-effects network meta-analysis was used. We assessed trial-result risk of bias (Cochrane RoB 2), network meta-analysis inconsistency and certainty of evidence (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation for network meta-analysis)., Results: We included 129 studies (74,946 participants). Nineteen intervention components, including 'multifactorial-action' (multidomain assessment and management/individualised care planning), were identified in 63 combinations. The following results were of low certainty unless otherwise stated. For living at home, compared to no intervention/placebo, evidence favoured: multifactorial-action and review with medication-review (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.59; moderate certainty) multifactorial-action with medication-review (odds ratio 2.55, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 10.60) cognitive training, medication-review, nutrition and exercise (odds ratio 1.93, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 4.77) and activities of daily living training, nutrition and exercise (odds ratio 1.79, 95% confidence interval 0.67 to 4.76). Four intervention combinations may reduce living at home. For instrumental activities of daily living, evidence favoured multifactorial-action and 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. For personal activities of daily living, evidence favoured exercise, multifactorial-action and review with medication-review and self-management (standardised mean difference 0.16, 95% confidence interval -0.51 to 0.82). For homecare recipients, evidence favoured the addition of multifactorial-action and review with medication-review (standardised mean difference 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.32 to 0.88). Care-home placement and service/economic findings were inconclusive., Limitations: High risk of bias in most results 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. Studies were diverse; findings may not apply to all contexts., Conclusions: Findings for the many intervention combinations evaluated were largely small and uncertain. However, the combinations most likely to sustain independence include multifactorial-action, medication-review and ongoing review of patients. Some combinations may reduce independence., Future Work: Further research is required to explore mechanisms of action and interaction with context. Different methods for evidence synthesis may illuminate further., Study Registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019162195., Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR128862) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment ; Vol. 28, No. 48. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

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., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: AC, TC, JE, AF, JGl, MJ, NL, and RRi had financial support from the NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme for the submitted work; MB had financial support from the PhD Graduate Teaching Fund at the University of Liverpool for the submitted work; DA declares payment made to her employer, University of Leeds Library, from the Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research, Bradford Institute for Health Research, for services that included contributions to the submitted work; TC, AC, and AF received research funding from NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research; AC and AF also received research funding from NIHR HSDR Programme; AC also received research funding from Health Data Research UK, NIHR ARC Yorkshire and Humber, NIHR Leeds BRC, and Dunhill Medical Trust; AF also declares NIHR Senior Investigator award, National Institute for Health (USA) payment for panel membership in 2021 and 2022, and University of Leeds Governor representative on the Governors Board of Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust; MB and MP received NIHR pre-doctoral fellowship funding; RB is supported by matched funding awarded to the NIHR Applied Research Collaboration (West Midlands) and is a member of the data monitoring committee for the Predict and Prevent AECOPD Trial and College of Experts, Versus Arthritis; AC is a member of NIHR HTA Commissioned Research Funding Committee and Dunhill Medical Trust Research Grants Committee; RRi received personal payments for training courses provided in-house to universities (Leeds, Aberdeen, Exeter, LSHTM) and other organisations (Roche), has received personal payments from the BMJ and BMJ Medicine as their statistical editor, is a co-convenor of the Cochrane Prognosis Methods Group and on the Editorial Board of Diagnostic and Prognostic Research, and Research Synthesis Methods, but receives no income for these roles, receives personal payment for being the external examiner of the MSc Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, was previously an external examiner for the MSc Medical Statistics at University of Leicester, has written two textbooks for which he receives royalties from sales (Prognosis Research in Healthcare, and Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis), is a lead editor on an upcoming book (Cochrane Handbook for Prognosis Reviews, Wiley, 2025), for which he will receive royalties from sales, has received consulting fees for a training course on IPD meta-analysis from Roche in 2018, the NIHR HTA grant paid for travel to Leeds for one meeting, and is a member of the NIHR Doctoral Research Fellowships grant panel, and a member of the MRC Better Methods Better Research grant panel—for the latter, he receives an attendance fee; MH declares NIHR Academic Clinical Fellowship; OT declares NIHR Academic Clinical Lectureship and Dunhill Medical Trust Doctoral Research Fellowship RTF107/0117; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background and Objectives: Apathy is one of the most common symptoms following stroke and is often associated with worse functional outcome and poor quality of life (QoL). The trajectory of apathy symptoms has been previously described, and different trajectories have been identified. We determined group and individual changes in apathy symptomatology from the acute phase until 1 year after stroke. We also examined the association of apathy and depression with disability and QoL 1 year after stroke., Methods: We measured apathy in a cohort of ischemic stroke survivors at 4 time points from 0 to 12 months after stroke. The Apathy Evaluation Scale (AES) and Dimensional Apathy Scale (DAS) were administered at each time point. Where possible we obtained apathy measured from carers. Depression was assessed with the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS). Disability and QoL were assessed with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36). We examined the cross-sectional and individual trajectory of apathy symptoms in each dimension and looked at associations of apathy and depression soon after stroke with mRS and SF-36 at 1 year., Results: Of 200 participants enrolled, 165 completed apathy measures at 12 months. Patient-rated apathy scores increased in both tests at the group level (AES: χ 2 (3) = 9.86, p = 0.019; DAS: χ 2 (3) = 8.49, p = 0.037) and individual level (AES: β = 0.13, p = 0.002; DAS β = 0.13, p = 0.005; DAS: executive β = 0.08, p < 0.001). By contrast, carer-rated apathy did not significantly increase (AES: χ 2 (3) = 0.75, p = 0.862; DAS: χ 2 (3) = 2.45, p = 0.484). Apathy scores were associated with worse mRS and SF-36, although most associations were no longer significant when controlling for depression. GDS was associated with worse mRS and SF-36 after controlling for covariates and apathy (mRS: β = 0.08, p = 0.006; SF-36 Mental Component Summary: β = -1.53, p < 0.001; SF-36 Physical Component Summary: β = -0.57, p = 0.016)., Discussion: Self-reported apathy progressively increases after stroke, especially in the executive dimension. Apathy is associated with worse QoL and greater disability, although some of these associations might be mediated by depression.

Background: Care home (CH) residents are mainly inactive, leading to increased dependency and low mood. Strategies to improve activity are required., Design and Setting: Cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial with embedded process and health economic evaluations. Twelve residential CHs in Yorkshire, United Kingdom, were randomised to the MoveMore intervention plus usual care (UC) (n = 5) or UC only (n = 7)., Participants: Permanent residents aged ≥65 years., Intervention: MoveMore: a whole home intervention involving all CH staff designed to encourage and support increase in movement of residents., Objectives and Measurements: Feasibility objectives relating to recruitment, intervention delivery, data collection and follow-up and safety concerns informed the feasibility of progression to a definitive trial. Data collection at baseline, 3, 6 and 9 months included: participants' physical function and mobility, perceived health, mood, quality of life, cognitive impairment questionnaires; accelerometry; safety data; intervention implementation., Results: 300 residents were screened; 153 were registered (62 MoveMore; 91 UC). Average cluster size: MoveMore: 12.4 CHs; UC: 13.0 CHs. There were no CH/resident withdrawals. Forty (26.1%) participants were unavailable for follow-up: 28 died (12 MoveMore; 16 UC); 12 moved from the CH. Staff informant/proxy data collection for participants was >80%; data collection from participants was <75%; at 9 months, 65.6% of residents provided valid accelerometer data; two CHs fully, two partially and one failed to implement the intervention. There were no safety concerns., Conclusions: Recruiting CHs and residents was feasible. Intervention implementation and data collection methods need refinement before a definitive trial. There were no safety concerns., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)