Low-intake dehydration prevalence in non-hospitalised older adults: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Low-intake dehydration amongst older people, caused by insufficient fluid intake, is associated with mortality, multiple long-term health conditions and hospitalisation. The prevalence of low-intake dehydration in older adults, and which groups are most at-risk, is unclear. We conducted a high-quality systematic review and meta-analysis, implementing an innovative methodology, to establish the prevalence of low-intake dehydration in older people (PROSPERO registration: CRD42021241252). METHOD: We systematically searched Medline (Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase (Ovid), CINAHL and Proquest from inception until April 2023 and Nutrition and Food Sciences until March 2021. We included studies that assessed hydration status for non-hospitalised participants aged ≥65 years, by directly-measured serum/plasma osmolality, calculated serum/plasma osmolarity and/or 24-h oral fluid intake. Inclusion, data extraction and risk of bias assessment was carried out independently in duplicate. RESULTS: From 11,077 titles and abstracts, we included 61 (22,398 participants), including 44 in quality-effects meta-analysis. Meta-analysis suggested that 24% (95% CI: 0.07, 0.46) of older people were dehydrated (assessed using directly-measured osmolality >300 mOsm/kg, the most reliable measure). Subgroup analyses indicated that both long-term care residents (34%, 95% CI: 0.09, 0.61) and community-dwelling older adults (19%, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.48) were highly likely to be dehydrated. Those with more pre-existing illnesses (37%, 95% CI: 0.14, 0.62) had higher low-intake dehydration prevalence than others (15%, 95% CI: 0.00, 0.43), and there was a non-significant suggestion that those with renal impairment (42%, 95% CI: 0.23, 0.61) were more likely to be dehydrated than others (23%, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.47), but there were no clear differences in prevalence by age, sex, functional, cognitive or diabetic status. GRADE quality of evidence was low as to the exact prevalence due to high levels of heterogeneity between studies. CONCLUSION: Quality-effects meta-analysis estimated that a quarter of non-hospitalised older people were dehydrated. Widely varying prevalence rates in individual studies, from both long-term care and community groups, highlight that dehydration is preventable amongst older people. IMPLICATIONS: One in every 4 older adults has low-intake dehydration. As dehydration is serious and prevalent, research is needed to better understand drinking behaviour and assess effectiveness of drinking interventions for older people.

Patient care, integration and collaboration of physician associates in multiprofessional teams: A mixed methods study.

AIMS: The aim of the study was to explore the physician associate role in patient care, integration and collaboration with team members, within the hospital setting. DESIGN: Convergent mixed methods case study design. METHODS: Questionnaires with some open-ended questions and semi-structured interviews were analysed with descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants included 12 physician associates, 31 health professionals and 14 patients/relatives. Physician associates provide effective, safe and, importantly, continuity of care and patients received patient-centred care. Integration into teams was variable, and there was a lack of knowledge about the physician associate role amongst staff and patients. Views towards physician associates were mostly positive, but support for physician associates differed across the three hospitals. CONCLUSION: This study further consolidates the role of physician associates to multiprofessional teams and patient care and emphasises the importance of providing support to individuals and teams when integrating new professions. Interprofessional learning throughout healthcare careers can develop interprofessional working within multiprofessional teams. IMPACT: Leaders in healthcare will see that clarity about the role of physician associates must be given to staff members and patients. Employers and team members will see the need to properly integrate new professions and team members within the workplace and to enhance professional identities. The research will also impact on educational establishments to provide more interprofessional training. PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT: There is no patient and public involvement.

Methodological review: quality of randomized controlled trials in health literacy.

BACKGROUND: The growing move towards patient-centred care has led to substantial research into improving the health literacy skills of patients and members of the public. Hence, there is a pressing need to assess the methodology used in contemporary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions directed at health literacy, in particular the quality (risk of bias), and the types of outcomes reported. METHODS: We conducted a systematic database search for RCTs involving interventions directed at health literacy in adults, published from 2009 to 2014. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess quality of RCT implementation. We also checked the sample size calculation for primary outcomes. Reported evidence of efficacy (statistical significance) was extracted for intervention outcomes in any of three domains of effect: knowledge, behaviour, health status. Demographics of intervention participants were also extracted, including socioeconomic status. RESULTS: We found areas of methodological strength (good randomization and allocation concealment), but areas of weakness regarding blinding of participants, people delivering the intervention and outcomes assessors. Substantial attrition (losses by monitoring time point) was seen in a third of RCTs, potentially leading to insufficient power to obtain precise estimates of intervention effect on primary outcomes. Most RCTs showed that the health literacy interventions had some beneficial effect on knowledge outcomes, but this was typically for less than 3 months after intervention end. There were far fewer reports of significant improvements in substantive patient-oriented outcomes, such as beneficial effects on behavioural change or health (clinical) status. Most RCTs featured participants from vulnerable populations. CONCLUSIONS: Our evaluation shows that health literacy trial design, conduct and reporting could be considerably improved, particularly by reducing attrition and obtaining longer follow-up. More meaningful RCTs would also result if health literacy trials were designed with public and patient involvement to focus on clinically important patient-oriented outcomes, rather than just knowledge, behaviour or skills in isolation.

Increasing fluid intake and reducing dehydration risk in older people living in long-term care: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy of interventions and environmental factors on increasing fluid intake or reducing dehydration risk in older people living in long-term care facilities. DESIGN: Systematic review of intervention and observational studies. DATA SOURCES: Thirteen electronic databases were searched from inception until September 2013 in all languages. References of included papers and reviews were checked. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Intervention and observational studies investigating modifiable factors to increase fluid intake and/or reduce dehydration risk in older people (≥65 years) living in long-term care facilities who could drink orally. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently screened, selected, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias from included studies; narrative synthesis was performed. RESULTS: A total of 4328 titles and abstracts were identified, 325 full-text articles were obtained and 23 were included in the review. Nineteen intervention and 4 observational studies from 7 countries investigated factors at the resident, institutional, or policy level. Overall, the studies were at high risk of bias due to selection and attrition bias and lack of valid outcome measures of fluid intake and dehydration assessment. Reported findings from 6 of the 9 intervention studies investigating the effect of multicomponent strategies on fluid intake or dehydration described a positive effect. Components included greater choice and availability of beverages, increased staff awareness, and increased staff assistance with drinking and toileting. Implementation of the US Resident Assessment Instrument reduced dehydration prevalence from 3% to 1%, P = .01. Two smaller studies reported positive effects: one on fluid intake in 9 men with Alzheimer disease using high-contrast red cups, the other involved supplementing 13 mildly dehydrated residents with oral hydration solution over 5 days to reduce dehydration. Modifications to the dining environment, advice to residents, presentation of beverages, and mode of delivery (straw vs beaker; prethickened drinks vs those thickened at the bedside) were inconclusive. Two large observational studies with good internal validity investigated effects of ownership; in Canada, for-profit ownership was associated with increased hospital admissions for dehydration; no difference was seen in dehydration prevalence between US for-profit and not-for-profit homes, although chain facilities were associated with lower odds of dehydration. This US study did not suggest any effect of staffing levels on dehydration prevalence. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of interventions and exposures were identified, but the efficacy of many strategies remains unproven due to the high risk of bias present in many studies. Reducing dehydration prevalence in long-term care facilities is likely to require multiple strategies involving policymakers, management, and care staff, but these require further investigation using more robust study methodologies. The review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42012003100).