Examining the social networks of older adults receiving informal or formal care: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To address the care needs of older adults, it is important to identify and understand the forms of care support older adults received. This systematic review aims to examine the social networks of older adults receiving informal or formal care and the factors that influenced their networks. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by searching six databases from inception to January 31, 2023. The review included primary studies focusing on older adults receiving long-term care, encompassing both informal and formal care. To assess the risk of bias in the included studies, validated appraisal tools specifically designed for different study types were utilized. Network analysis was employed to identify the grouping of study concepts, which subsequently formed the foundation for describing themes through narrative synthesis. RESULTS: We identified 121 studies relating to the formal and informal care of older adults' networks. A variety of social ties were examined by included studies. The most commonly examined sources of care support were family members (such as children and spouses) and friends. Several factors were consistently reported to influence the provision of informal care, including the intensity of networks, reciprocity, and geographical proximity. In terms of formal care utilization, older age and poor health status were found to be associated with increased use of healthcare services. Additionally, physical limitations and cognitive impairment were identified as factors contributing to decreased social engagement. CONCLUSION: This review found that older people were embedded within a diverse network. The findings of this review emphasize the importance of recognizing and incorporating the diversity of social networks in care plans and policies to enhance the effectiveness of interventions and improve the overall well-being of older adults.

Complex interventions for improving independent living and quality of life amongst community-dwelling older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: community-based complex interventions for older adults have a variety of names, including Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment, but often share core components such as holistic needs assessment and care planning. OBJECTIVE: to summarise evidence for the components and effectiveness of community-based complex interventions for improving older adults' independent living and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: we searched nine databases and trial registries to February 2022 for randomised controlled trials comparing complex interventions to usual care. Primary outcomes included living at home and QoL. Secondary outcomes included mortality, hospitalisation, institutionalisation, cognitive function and functional status. We pooled data using risk ratios (RRs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: we included 50 trials of mostly moderate quality. Most reported using holistic assessment (94%) and care planning (90%). Twenty-seven (54%) involved multidisciplinary care, with 29.6% delivered mainly by primary care teams without geriatricians. Nurses were the most frequent care coordinators. Complex interventions increased the likelihood of living at home (RR 1.05; 95% CI 1.00-1.10; moderate-quality evidence) but did not affect QoL. Supported by high-quality evidence, they reduced mortality (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.77-0.96), enhanced cognitive function (SMD 0.12; 95% CI 0.02-0.22) and improved instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs) (SMD 0.11; 95% CI 0.01-0.21) and combined basic/instrumental ADLs (SMD 0.08; 95% CI 0.03-0.13). CONCLUSIONS: complex interventions involving holistic assessment and care planning increased the chance of living at home, reduced mortality and improved cognitive function and some ADLs.

Interventions for perceptual disorders following stroke.

BACKGROUND: Perception is the ability to understand information from our senses. It allows us to experience and meaningfully interact with our environment. A stroke may impair perception in up to 70% of stroke survivors, leading to distress, increased dependence on others, and poorer quality of life. Interventions to address perceptual disorders may include assessment and screening, rehabilitation, non-invasive brain stimulation, pharmacological and surgical approaches. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at perceptual disorders after stroke compared to no intervention or control (placebo, standard care, attention control), on measures of performance in activities of daily living.  SEARCH METHODS: We searched the trials registers of the Cochrane Stroke Group, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases to August 2021. We also searched trials and research registers, reference lists of studies, handsearched journals, and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adult stroke survivors with perceptual disorders. We defined perception as the specific mental functions of recognising and interpreting sensory stimuli and included hearing, taste, touch, smell, somatosensation, and vision. Our definition of perception excluded visual field deficits, neglect/inattention, and pain. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author assessed titles, with two review authors independently screening abstracts and full-text articles for eligibility. One review author extracted, appraised, and entered data, which were checked by a second author. We assessed risk of bias (ROB) using the ROB-1 tool, and quality of evidence using GRADE.  A stakeholder group, comprising stroke survivors, carers, and healthcare professionals, was involved in this review update. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 18 eligible RCTs involving 541 participants. The trials addressed touch (three trials, 70 participants), somatosensory (seven trials, 196 participants) and visual perception disorders (seven trials, 225 participants), with one (50 participants) exploring mixed touch-somatosensory disorders. None addressed stroke-related hearing, taste, or smell perception disorders. All but one examined the effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions; the exception evaluated non-invasive brain stimulation. For our main comparison of active intervention versus no treatment or control, one trial reported our primary outcome of performance in activities of daily living (ADL):  Somatosensory disorders: one trial (24 participants) compared an intervention with a control intervention and reported an ADL measure.  Touch perception disorder: no trials measuring ADL compared an intervention with no treatment or with a control intervention.  Visual perception disorders: no trials measuring ADL compared an intervention with no treatment or control.  In addition, six trials reported ADL outcomes in a comparison of active intervention versus active intervention, relating to somatosensation (three trials), touch (one trial) and vision (two trials).   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Following a detailed, systematic search, we identified limited RCT evidence of the effectiveness of interventions for perceptual disorders following stroke. There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the suggestion that perceptual interventions are effective. More high-quality trials of interventions for perceptual disorders in stroke are needed. They should recruit sufficient participant numbers, include a 'usual care' comparison, and measure longer-term functional outcomes, at time points beyond the initial intervention period. People with impaired perception following a stroke should continue to receive neurorehabilitation according to clinical guidelines.

Perceptual Disorders After Stroke: A Scoping Review of Interventions.

Perceptual disorders relating to hearing, smell, somatosensation, taste, touch, and vision commonly impair stroke survivors' ability to interpret sensory information, impacting on their ability to interact with the world. We aimed to identify and summarize the existing evidence for perceptual disorder interventions poststroke and identify evidence gaps. We searched 13 electronic databases including MEDLINE and Embase and Grey literature and performed citation tracking. Two authors independently applied a priori-defined selection criteria; studies involving stroke survivors with perceptual impairments and interventions addressing those impairments were included. We extracted data on study design, population, perceptual disorders, interventions, and outcomes. Data were tabulated and synthesized narratively. Stroke survivors, carers, and clinicians were involved in agreeing definitions and organizing and interpreting data. From 91 869 records, 80 studies were identified (888 adults and 5 children); participant numbers were small (median, 3.5; range, 1-80), with a broad range of stroke types and time points. Primarily focused on vision (34/80, 42.5%) and somatosensation (28/80; 35.0%), included studies were often case reports (36/80; 45.0%) or randomized controlled trials (22/80; 27.5%). Rehabilitation approaches (78/93; 83.9%), primarily aimed to restore function, and were delivered by clinicians (30/78; 38.5%) or technology (28/78; 35.9%; including robotic interventions for somatosensory disorders). Pharmacological (6/93; 6.5%) and noninvasive brain stimulation (7/93; 7.5%) approaches were also evident. Intervention delivery was poorly reported, but most were delivered in hospital settings (56/93; 60.2%). Study outcomes failed to assess the transfer of training to daily life. Interventions for stroke-related perceptual disorders are underresearched, particularly for pediatric populations. Evidence gaps include interventions for disorders of hearing, taste, touch, and smell perception. Future studies must involve key stakeholders and report this fully. Optimization of intervention design, evaluation, and reporting is required, to support the development of effective, acceptable, and implementable interventions. Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/; Unique identifier: CRD42019160270.

Using the Barthel Index and modified Rankin Scale as Outcome Measures for Stroke Rehabilitation Trials; A Comparison of Minimum Sample Size Requirements.

OBJECTIVES: Underpowered trials risk inaccurate results. Recruitment to stroke rehabilitation randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is often a challenge. Statistical simulations offer an important opportunity to explore the adequacy of sample sizes in the context of specific outcome measures. We aimed to examine and compare the adequacy of stroke rehabilitation RCT sample sizes using the Barthel Index (BI) or modified Rankin Scale (mRS) as primary outcomes. METHODS: We conducted computer simulations using typical experimental event rates (EER) and control event rates (CER) based on individual participant data (IPD) from stroke rehabilitation RCTs. Event rates are the proportion of participants who experienced clinically relevant improvements in the RCT experimental and control groups. We examined minimum sample size requirements and estimated the number of participants required to achieve a number needed to treat within clinically acceptable boundaries for the BI and mRS. RESULTS: We secured 2350 IPD (18 RCTs). For a 90% chance of statistical accuracy on the BI a rehabilitation RCT would require 273 participants per randomised group. Accurate interpretation of effect sizes would require 1000s of participants per group. Simulations for the mRS were not possible as a clinically relevant improvement was not detected when using this outcome measure. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke rehabilitation RCTs with large sample sizes are required for accurate interpretation of effect sizes based on the BI. The mRS lacked sensitivity to detect change and thus may be unsuitable as a primary outcome in stroke rehabilitation trials.

Prognostic rules for predicting cognitive syndromes following stroke: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Stroke survivors are at high risk of developing cognitive syndromes, such as delirium and dementia. Accurate prediction of future cognitive outcomes may aid timely diagnosis, intervention planning, and stratification in clinical trials. We aimed to identify, describe and appraise existing multivariable prognostic rules for prediction of post-stroke cognitive status. METHOD: We systematically searched four electronic databases from inception to November 2019 for publications describing a method to estimate individual probability of developing a cognitive syndrome following stroke. We extracted data from selected studies using a pre-specified proforma and applied the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) for critical appraisal. FINDINGS: Of 17,390 titles, we included 10 studies (3143 participants), presenting the development of 11 prognostic rules - 7 for post-stroke cognitive impairment and 4 for delirium. Most commonly incorporated predictors were: demographics, imaging findings, stroke type and symptom severity. Among studies assessing predictive discrimination, the area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) in apparent validation ranged from 0.80 to 0.91. The overall risk of bias for each study was high. Only one prognostic rule had been externally validated.Discussion/conclusion: Research into the prognosis of cognitive outcomes following stroke is an expanding field, still at its early stages. Recommending use of specific prognostic rules is limited by the high risk of bias in all identified studies, and lack of supporting evidence from external validation. To ensure the quality of future research, investigators should adhere to current, endorsed best practice guidelines for conduct of prediction model studies.

Following the science? Comparison of methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 and other research from the first wave of the pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Following the initial identification of the 2019 coronavirus disease (covid-19), the subsequent months saw substantial increases in published biomedical research. Concerns have been raised in both scientific and lay press around the quality of some of this research. We assessed clinical research from major clinical journals, comparing methodological and reporting quality of covid-19 papers published in the first wave (here defined as December 2019 to May 2020 inclusive) of the viral pandemic with non-covid papers published at the same time. METHODS: We reviewed research publications (print and online) from The BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), The Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine, from first publication of a covid-19 research paper (February 2020) to May 2020 inclusive. Paired reviewers were randomly allocated to extract data on methodological quality (risk of bias) and reporting quality (adherence to reporting guidance) from each paper using validated assessment tools. A random 10% of papers were assessed by a third, independent rater. Overall methodological quality for each paper was rated high, low or unclear. Reporting quality was described as percentage of total items reported. RESULTS: From 168 research papers, 165 were eligible, including 54 (33%) papers with a covid-19 focus. For methodological quality, 18 (33%) covid-19 papers and 83 (73%) non-covid papers were rated as low risk of bias, OR 6.32 (95%CI 2.85 to 14.00). The difference in quality was maintained after adjusting for publication date, results, funding, study design, journal and raters (OR 6.09 (95%CI 2.09 to 17.72)). For reporting quality, adherence to reporting guidelines was poorer for covid-19 papers, mean percentage of total items reported 72% (95%CI:66 to 77) for covid-19 papers and 84% (95%CI:81 to 87) for non-covid. CONCLUSIONS: Across various measures, we have demonstrated that covid-19 research from the first wave of the pandemic was potentially of lower quality than contemporaneous non-covid research. While some differences may be an inevitable consequence of conducting research during a viral pandemic, poor reporting should not be accepted.

Interventions to support the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic: a mixed methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence from disease epidemics shows that healthcare workers are at risk of developing short- and long-term mental health problems. The World Health Organization (WHO) has warned about the potential negative impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the mental well-being of health and social care professionals. Symptoms of mental health problems commonly include depression, anxiety, stress, and additional cognitive and social problems; these can impact on function in the workplace. The mental health and resilience (ability to cope with the negative effects of stress) of frontline health and social care professionals ('frontline workers' in this review) could be supported during disease epidemics by workplace interventions, interventions to support basic daily needs, psychological support interventions, pharmacological interventions, or a combination of any or all of these. OBJECTIVES: Objective 1: to assess the effects of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. Objective 2: to identify barriers and facilitators that may impact on the implementation of interventions aimed at supporting the resilience and mental health of frontline health and social care professionals during and after a disease outbreak, epidemic or pandemic. SEARCH METHODS: On 28 May 2020 we searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus databases and WHO Institutional Repository for Information Sharing. We also searched ongoing trials registers and Google Scholar. We ran all searches from the year 2002 onwards, with no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies in which participants were health and social care professionals working at the front line during infectious disease outbreaks, categorised as epidemics or pandemics by WHO, from 2002 onwards. For objective 1 we included quantitative evidence from randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies, which investigated the effect of any intervention to support mental health or resilience, compared to no intervention, standard care, placebo or attention control intervention, or other active interventions. For objective 2 we included qualitative evidence from studies that described barriers and facilitators to the implementation of interventions. Outcomes critical to this review were general mental health and resilience. Additional outcomes included psychological symptoms of anxiety, depression or stress; burnout; other mental health disorders; workplace staffing; and adverse events arising from interventions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently applied selection criteria to abstracts and full papers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. One review author systematically extracted data, cross-checked by a second review author. For objective 1, we assessed risk of bias of studies of effectiveness using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. For objective 2, we assessed methodological limitations using either the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) qualitative study tool, for qualitative studies, or WEIRD (Ways of Evaluating Important and Relevant Data) tool, for descriptive studies. We planned meta-analyses of pairwise comparisons for outcomes if direct evidence were available. Two review authors extracted evidence relating to barriers and facilitators to implementation, organised these around the domains of the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research, and used the GRADE-CERQual approach to assess confidence in each finding. We planned to produce an overarching synthesis, bringing quantitative and qualitative findings together. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 studies that reported implementation of an intervention aimed at supporting the resilience or mental health of frontline workers during disease outbreaks (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS): 2; Ebola: 9; Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS): 1; COVID-19: 4). Interventions studied included workplace interventions, such as training, structure and communication (6 studies); psychological support interventions, such as counselling and psychology services (8 studies); and multifaceted interventions (2 studies). Objective 1: a mixed-methods study that incorporated a cluster-randomised trial, investigating the effect of a work-based intervention, provided very low-certainty evidence about the effect of training frontline healthcare workers to deliver psychological first aid on a measure of burnout. Objective 2: we included all 16 studies in our qualitative evidence synthesis; we classified seven as qualitative and nine as descriptive studies. We identified 17 key findings from multiple barriers and facilitators reported in studies. We did not have high confidence in any of the findings; we had moderate confidence in six findings and low to very low confidence in 11 findings. We are moderately confident that the following two factors were barriers to intervention implementation: frontline workers, or the organisations in which they worked, not being fully aware of what they needed to support their mental well-being; and a lack of equipment, staff time or skills needed for an intervention. We are moderately confident that the following three factors were facilitators of intervention implementation: interventions that could be adapted for local needs; having effective communication, both formally and socially; and having positive, safe and supportive learning environments for frontline workers. We are moderately confident that the knowledge or beliefs, or both, that people have about an intervention can act as either barriers or facilitators to implementation of the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of both quantitative and qualitative evidence from studies carried out during or after disease epidemics and pandemics that can inform the selection of interventions that are beneficial to the resilience and mental health of frontline workers. Alternative sources of evidence (e.g. from other healthcare crises, and general evidence about interventions that support mental well-being) could therefore be used to inform decision making. When selecting interventions aimed at supporting frontline workers' mental health, organisational, social, personal, and psychological factors may all be important. Research to determine the effectiveness of interventions is a high priority. The COVID-19 pandemic provides unique opportunities for robust evaluation of interventions. Future studies must be developed with appropriately rigorous planning, including development, peer review and transparent reporting of research protocols, following guidance and standards for best practice, and with appropriate length of follow-up. Factors that may act as barriers and facilitators to implementation of interventions should be considered during the planning of future research and when selecting interventions to deliver within local settings.

Prediction of RECRUITment In randomized clinical Trials (RECRUIT-IT)-rationale and design for an international collaborative study.

BACKGROUND: Poor recruitment of patients is the predominant reason for early termination of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Systematic empirical investigations and validation studies of existing recruitment models, however, are lacking. We aim to provide evidence-based guidance on how to predict and monitor recruitment of patients into RCTs. Our specific objectives are the following: (1) to establish a large sample of RCTs (target n = 300) with individual patient recruitment data from a large variety of RCTs, (2) to investigate participant recruitment patterns and study site recruitment patterns and their association with the overall recruitment process, (3) to investigate the validity of a freely available recruitment model, and (4) to develop a user-friendly tool to assist trial investigators in the planning and monitoring of the recruitment process. METHODS: Eligible RCTs need to have completed the recruitment process, used a parallel group design, and investigated any healthcare intervention where participants had the free choice to participate. To establish the planned sample of RCTs, we will use our contacts to national and international RCT networks, clinical trial units, and individual trial investigators. From included RCTs, we will collect patient-level information (date of randomization), site-level information (date of trial site activation), and trial-level information (target sample size). We will examine recruitment patterns using recruitment trajectories and stratifications by RCT characteristics. We will investigate associations of early recruitment patterns with overall recruitment by correlation and multivariable regression. To examine the validity of a freely available Bayesian prediction model, we will compare model predictions to collected empirical data of included RCTs. Finally, we will user-test any promising tool using qualitative methods for further tool improvement. DISCUSSION: This research will contribute to a better understanding of participant recruitment to RCTs, which could enhance efficiency and reduce the waste of resources in clinical research with a comprehensive, concerted, international effort.

Recruitment challenges in stroke rehabilitation randomized controlled trials: a qualitative exploration of trialists' perspectives using Framework analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the underlying reasons for recruitment difficulties to stroke rehabilitation randomized controlled trials from the perspective of trialists. DESIGN: A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and Framework analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty multidisciplinary stroke rehabilitation trialists across 13 countries with a range of clinical and research experience. METHODS: Twenty semi-structured telephone interviews were carried out. Purposeful sampling ensured a range of opinions were gathered from across the international stroke rehabilitation research community. Using Framework analysis, the analytical framework was formed by three researchers and tested before being applied to the total dataset. RESULTS: Three themes described the trialists' perception of the underlying reasons for recruitment difficulties: (i) decision making, (ii) importance of recruiters and (iii) a broken system. Trialists described frequently disregarding evidence in favour of prior research experiences when planning randomized controlled trial recruitment. All felt that the relationship between the research and clinical teams was vital to ensure recruiters prioritized and found value in recruitment to the trial. Experienced trialists were frustrated by the lack of reporting of the reality of running trials, research governance demands and the feeling that they had to deliberately underestimate recruitment timeframes to secure funding. CONCLUSION: Stroke rehabilitation trialists described recruitment difficulties which may be related to their experiential based recruitment decision making, a lack of understanding of how best to incentivize and maintain relationships with recruiters and unrealistic bureaucratic expectations both in terms of gaining funding and research governance.

A systematic review of the efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that fail to meet their recruitment target risk increasing research waste. Acute stroke RCTs experience notable recruitment issues. The efficiency of recruitment to stroke rehabilitation RCTs has not been explored. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To explore recruitment efficiency and the trial features associated with efficient recruitment to stroke rehabilitation RCTs. METHODS: A systematic review of stroke rehabilitation RCTs published between 2005 and 2015 identified in a search of the Cochrane Stroke Group (CSG) Trials Register from 35 electronic databases (e.g. Medline, CINAHL; EMBASE), clinical trial registers, and hand-searching. Inclusion criteria are stroke rehabilitation intervention, delivered by a member of the rehabilitation team, and clinically relevant environment. We extracted data on recruitment efficiency and trial features. RESULTS: We screened 12,939 titles, 1270 abstracts and 788 full texts, before extracting data from 512 included RCTs (n = 28,804 stroke survivor participants). This is the largest systematic review of recruitment to date. A third of stroke survivors screened consented to participate (median 34% (IQR 14-61), on average sites recruited 1.5 participants per site per month (IQR 0.71-3.22), and one in twenty (6% (IQR 0-13) dropped out during the RCT. Almost half (48%) of those screened in the community were recruited compared to hospital settings (27%). Similarly, almost half (47%) those screened at least 6 months after stroke participated, compared to 23% of stroke survivors screened within a month of stroke. When one recruiter screened multiple sites, a median of one stroke survivor was recruited every 2 months compared to more than two per month when there was a dedicated recruiter per site. RCT recruitment was significantly faster per site, with fewer dropouts, for trials conducted in Asia (almost three stroke survivors monthly; 2% dropout) compared to European trials (approximately one stroke survivor monthly; 7% dropout). CONCLUSIONS: One third of stroke survivors screened were randomised to rehabilitation RCTs at a rate of between one and two per month, per site. One in twenty did not complete the trial. Our findings will inform recruitment plans of future stroke rehabilitation RCTs. Limited reporting of recruitment details restricted the subgroup analysis performed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, registration number CRD42016033067.