1
|
Crocker TF, Ensor J, Lam N, Jordão M, Bajpai R, Bond M, Forster A, Riley RD, Andre D, Brundle C, Ellwood A, Green J, Hale M, Mirza L, Morgan J, Patel I, Patetsini E, Prescott M, Ramiz R, Todd O, Walford R, Gladman J, Clegg A. Community based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ 2024; 384:e077764. [PMID: 38514079 PMCID: PMC10955723 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2023-077764] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 02/14/2024] [Indexed: 03/23/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas F Crocker
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Joie Ensor
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Natalie Lam
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Magda Jordão
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Ram Bajpai
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Matthew Bond
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Anne Forster
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Richard D Riley
- Institute of Applied Health Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Centre for Prognosis Research, School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, UK
| | - Deirdre Andre
- Research Support Team, Leeds University Library, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Caroline Brundle
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Alison Ellwood
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - John Green
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Matthew Hale
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Lubena Mirza
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Jessica Morgan
- Geriatric Medicine, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Ismail Patel
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Eleftheria Patetsini
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Matthew Prescott
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Ridha Ramiz
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Oliver Todd
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - Rebecca Walford
- Geriatric Medicine, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| | - John Gladman
- Centre for Rehabilitation and Ageing Research, Academic Unit of Injury, Inflammation and Recovery Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
- Health Care of Older People, Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, Nottingham, UK
| | - Andrew Clegg
- Academic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research (University of Leeds), Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
de Leeuwerk ME, Botjes M, van Vliet V, Geleijn E, de Groot V, van Wegen E, van der Schaaf M, Tuynman J, Dickhoff C, van der Leeden M. Self-monitoring of Physical Activity After Hospital Discharge in Patients Who Have Undergone Gastrointestinal or Lung Cancer Surgery: Mixed Methods Feasibility Study. JMIR Cancer 2022; 8:e35694. [PMID: 35749165 PMCID: PMC9270713 DOI: 10.2196/35694] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2021] [Revised: 03/31/2022] [Accepted: 04/10/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Self-monitoring of physical activity (PA) using an accelerometer is a promising intervention to stimulate PA after hospital discharge. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of PA self-monitoring after discharge in patients who have undergone gastrointestinal or lung cancer surgery. Methods A mixed methods study was conducted in which 41 patients with cancer scheduled for lobectomy, esophageal resection, or hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy were included. Preoperatively, patients received an ankle-worn accelerometer and the corresponding mobile health app to familiarize themselves with its use. The use was continued for up to 6 weeks after surgery. Feasibility criteria related to the study procedures, the System Usability Scale, and user experiences were established. In addition, 6 patients were selected to participate in semistructured interviews. Results The percentage of patients willing to participate in the study (68/90, 76%) and the final participation rate (57/90, 63%) were considered good. The retention rate was acceptable (41/57, 72%), whereas the rate of missing accelerometer data was relatively high (31%). The mean System Usability Scale score was good (77.3). Interviewed patients mentioned that the accelerometer and app were easy to use, motivated them to be more physically active, and provided postdischarge support. The technical shortcomings and comfort of the ankle straps should be improved. Conclusions Self-monitoring of PA after discharge appears to be feasible based on good system usability and predominantly positive user experiences in patients with cancer after lobectomy, esophageal resection, or hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy. Solving technical problems and improving the comfort of the ankle strap may reduce the number of dropouts and missing data in clinical use and follow-up studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marijke Elizabeth de Leeuwerk
- Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Ageing & Vitality, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Martine Botjes
- Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Vincent van Vliet
- Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Edwin Geleijn
- Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Vincent de Groot
- Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Rehabilitation & Development, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Erwin van Wegen
- Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Ageing & Vitality, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Rehabilitation & Development, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Marike van der Schaaf
- Ageing & Vitality, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Center of Expertise Urban Vitality, Faculty of Health, Amsterdam University of Applied Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Jurriaan Tuynman
- General Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Chris Dickhoff
- Cancer Centre Amsterdam, Treatment and Quality of Life, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | - Marike van der Leeden
- Rehabilitation Medicine, Amsterdam University Medical Centers location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.,Ageing & Vitality, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|