Understanding the implementation of interventions to improve the management of frailty in primary care: a rapid realist review

The temporal sequence and reciprocal relationships of frailty, social isolation and loneliness in older adults across 21 years

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether social isolation and loneliness may precede frailty status or whether frailty may precipitate social isolation and loneliness. We investigated the reciprocal and temporal sequence of social isolation, loneliness, and frailty among older adults across 21 years.

METHODS

We used seven waves of the Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam from 2302 Dutch older adults (M = 72.6 years, SD = 8.6, 52.1% female) ages 55 or older. Using random intercept cross-lagged panel models, we investigated between- and within-person associations of social isolation and loneliness with frailty. Frailty was measured using the Frailty Index. Loneliness was measured using the 11-item De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale. Social isolation was measured using a multi-domain 6-item scale.

RESULTS

Social isolation and loneliness were weakly correlated across waves. At the between-person level, individuals with higher levels of frailty tended to have higher levels of social isolation but not loneliness. At the within-person level, the cross-lagged paths indicated that earlier frailty status predicted future social isolation and loneliness over time. However, prior social isolation was not associated with subsequent frailty except at time point 5 (T5). Loneliness at specific time points (T1, T4 and T6) predicted greater frailty at later time points (T2, T5 and T7). The results also supported reciprocal and contemporaneous relations between social isolation, loneliness and frailty.

CONCLUSIONS

Social isolation and loneliness are potential outcomes of frailty. Public health policies and health practitioners should prioritise interventions targeting social connection among older adults with pre-frailty or frailty.

What patient-reported outcome measures may be suitable for research involving older adults with frailty? A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

The need to develop and evaluate frailty-related interventions is increasingly important, and inclusion of patient-reported outcomes is vital. Patient-reported outcomes can be defined as measures of health, quality of life or functional status reported directly by patients with no clinician interpretation. Numerous validated questionnaires can thus be considered patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). This review aimed to identify existing PROMs currently used in quantitative research that may be suitable for older people with frailty.

METHOD

PubMed and Cochrane were searched up to 24/11/22. Inclusion criteria were quantitative studies, use of a PROM, and either measurement of frailty or inclusion of older adult participants. Criteria were created to distinguish PROMs from questionnaire-based clinical assessments. 197 papers were screened. PROMs were categorized according to the domain assessed, as derived from a published consensus 'Standard Set of Health Outcome Measures for Older People'.

RESULTS

88 studies were included. 112 unique PROMs were used 289 times, most frequently the SF-36 (n = 21), EQ-5D (n = 21) and Barthel Index (n = 14). The most frequently assessed outcome domains included Mood and Emotional Health and Activities of Daily Living, with fewer assessments of Participation in Decision-Making and Carer Burden.

CONCLUSIONS

PROM usage in frailty research is highly heterogeneous. Frequently used PROMs omit important outcomes identified by older adults. Further research should evaluate the importance of specific outcomes and identify PROMs relevant to people at different stages of frailty. Consistent and appropriate PROM use in frailty research would facilitate more effective comparisons and meaningful evaluation of frailty interventions.

Preventive interventions to improve older people's health outcomes: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews of preventive, non-disease-specific primary care trials for older people often report effects according to what is thought to be the intervention's active ingredient.

AIM

To examine the effectiveness of preventive primary care interventions for older people and to identify common components that contribute to intervention success.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 22 publications from 2009 to 2019.

METHOD

A search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria were: sample mainly aged ≥65 years; delivered in primary care; and non-disease-specific interventions. Exclusion criteria were: non-RCTs; primarily pharmacological or psychological interventions; and where outcomes of interest were not reported. Risk of bias was assessed using the original Cochrane tool. Outcomes examined were healthcare use including admissions to hospital and aged residential care (ARC), and patient-reported outcomes including activities of daily living (ADLs) and self-rated health (SRH).

RESULTS

Many studies had a mix of patient-, provider-, and practice-focused intervention components (13 of 18 studies). Studies included in the review had low-to-moderate risk of bias. Interventions had no overall benefit to healthcare use (including admissions to hospital and ARC) but higher basic ADL scores were observed (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01 to 0.40) and higher odds of reporting positive SRH (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.37). When intervention effects were examined by components, better patient-reported outcomes were observed in studies that changed the care setting (SMD for basic ADLs 0.21, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.40; OR for positive SRH 1.17, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.37), included educational components for health professionals (SMD for basic ADLs 0.21, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.40; OR for positive SRH 1.27, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.55), and provided patient education (SMD for basic ADLs 0.28, 95% CI = 0.09 to 0.48). Additionally, admissions to hospital in intervention participants were fewer by 23% in studies that changed the care setting (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.77, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.95) and by 26% in studies that provided patient education (IRR 0.74, 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.97).

CONCLUSION

Preventive primary care interventions are beneficial to older people's functional ability and SRH but not other outcomes. To improve primary care for older people, future programmes should consider delivering care in alternative settings, for example, home visits and phone contacts, and providing education to patients and health professionals as these may contribute to positive outcomes.

Meals On Wheels Clients: Measurable Differences In The Likelihood Of Aging In Place Or Being Hospitalized

Little is known about how participation in home-delivered meal programs (known as Meals on Wheels), financed in part through the Older Americans Act, relates to the use of health services and the ability to age in place for elder Medicare beneficiaries. Using 2013-20 data from the National Health and Aging Trends Study, we evaluated the relationship between Meals on Wheels use and two outcomes-likelihood of continued community residence and risk for hospitalization-in the following year for Medicare beneficiaries ages sixty-five and older, overall and by gender, race, Medicaid enrollment, and frailty. Overall, Meals on Wheels users and nonusers were equally likely to still reside in the community one year later; however, continued community residence was more likely among users than nonusers who were Black, were enrolled in Medicaid, or were frail. Program use was marginally associated with increased likelihood of hospitalization in the following year overall, but more strongly so among frail users. Our findings are consistent with the heterogeneity of Medicare-age Meals on Wheels users nationwide and suggest that program benefits differ among specific populations.

Current frailty knowledge, awareness, and practices among physicians following the 2022 European consensus document on Frailty in Cardiology

Aims

Aging-related cardiovascular disease and frailty burdens are anticipated to rise with global aging. In response to directions from major cardiovascular societies, we investigated frailty knowledge, awareness, and practices among cardiologists as key stakeholders in this emerging paradigm a year after the European Frailty in Cardiology consensus document was published.

Methods and results

We launched a prospective multinational web-based survey via social networks to broad cardiology communities representing multiple World Health Organization regions, including Western Pacific and Southeast Asia regions. Overall, 578 respondents [38.2% female; ages 35-49 years (55.2%) and 50-64 years (34.4%)] across subspecialties, including interventionists (43.3%), general cardiologists (30.6%), and heart failure specialists (HFSs) (10.9%), were surveyed. Nearly half had read the consensus document (38.9%). Non-interventionists had better perceived knowledge of frailty assessment instruments (fully or vaguely aware, 57.2% vs. 45%, adj. P = 0.0002), exercise programmes (well aware, 12.9% vs. 6.0%, adj. P = 0.001), and engaged more in multidisciplinary team care (frequently or occasionally, 52.6% vs. 41%, adj. P = 0.002) than interventionists. Heart failure specialists more often addressed pre-procedural frailty (frequently or occasionally, 43.5% vs. 28.2%, P = 0.004) and polypharmacy (frequently or occasionally, 85.5% vs. 71%, adj. P = 0.014) and had consistently better composite knowledge (39.3% vs. 21.6%, adj. P = 0.001) and practice responses (21% vs. 11.1%, adj. P = 0.018) than non-HFSs. Respondents with better knowledge responses also had better frailty practices (40.3% vs. 3.6%, adj. P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Distinct response differences suggest that future strategies strengthening frailty principles should address practices peculiar to subspecialties, such as pre-procedural frailty strategies for interventionists and rehabilitation interventions for HFSs.

A closer look at weight loss interventions in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

The major aims were to quantify patient weight loss using various approaches adminstered by a primary care provider for at least 6 months and to unveil relevant contextual factors that could improve patient weight loss on a long-term basis.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted using Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to December 5, 2022. COVIDENCE systematic review software was used to identify and abstract data, as well as assess data quality and risk of bias.

Results

Seven studies included 2,187 people with obesity testing (1) anti-obesity medication (AOM), (2) AOM, intensive lifestyle counseling + meal replacements, and (3) physician training to better counsel patients on intensive lifestyle modification. Substantial heterogeneity in the outcomes was observed, as well as bias toward lack of published studies showing no effect. The random effect model estimated a treatment effect for the aggregate efficacy of primary care interventions -3.54 kg (95% CI: -5.61 kg to -1.47 kg). Interventions that included a medication component (alone or as part of a multipronged intervention) achieved a greater weight reduction by -2.94 kg (p < 0.0001). In all interventions, efficacy declined with time (reduction in weight loss by 0.53 kg per 6 months, 95% CI: 0.04-1.0 kg).

Conclusion

Weight loss interventions administered by a primary care provider can lead to modest weight loss. Weight loss is approximately doubled if anti-obesity medication is part of the treatment. Nevertheless, attenuated weight loss over time underscores the need for long-term treatment.

Systematic review registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ CRD4202121242344], identifier (CRD42021242344).

Transitional Care Interventions From Hospital to Community to Reduce Health Care Use and Improve Patient Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

Importance

Discharge from the hospital to the community has been associated with serious patient risks and excess service costs.

Objective

To evaluate the comparative effectiveness associated with transitional care interventions with different complexity levels at improving health care utilization and patient outcomes in the transition from the hospital to the community.

Data Sources

CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched from inception until August 2022.

Study Selection

Randomized clinical trials evaluating transitional care interventions from hospitals to the community were identified.

Data Extraction and Synthesis

At least 2 reviewers were involved in all data screening and extraction. Random-effects network meta-analyses and meta-regressions were applied. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcomes were readmission at 30, 90, and 180 days after discharge. Secondary outcomes included emergency department visits, mortality, quality of life, patient satisfaction, medication adherence, length of stay, primary care and outpatient visits, and intervention uptake.

Results

Overall, 126 trials with 97 408 participants were included, 86 (68%) of which were of low risk of bias. Low-complexity interventions were associated with the most efficacy for reducing hospital readmissions at 30 days (odds ratio [OR], 0.78; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.92) and 180 days (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.66) and emergency department visits (OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.96). Medium-complexity interventions were associated with the most efficacy at reducing hospital readmissions at 90 days (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.92), reducing adverse events (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.24 to 0.75), and improving medication adherence (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.67) but were associated with less efficacy than low-complexity interventions for reducing readmissions at 30 and 180 days. High-complexity interventions were most effective for reducing length of hospital stay (SMD, -0.20; 95% CI, -0.38 to -0.03) and increasing patient satisfaction (SMD, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.82) but were least effective for reducing readmissions at all time periods. None of the interventions were associated with improved uptake, quality of life (general, mental, or physical), or primary care and outpatient visits.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that low- and medium-complexity transitional care interventions were associated with reducing health care utilization for patients transitioning from hospitals to the community. Comprehensive and consistent outcome measures are needed to capture the patient benefits of transitional care interventions.

Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 7: Qualitative evidence synthesis for emerging themes in primary care research: Scoping review, meta-ethnography and rapid realist review

This article, the seventh in a series aiming to provide practical guidance for qualitative research in primary care, introduces qualitative synthesis research for addressing health themes in primary care research. Qualitative synthesis combines rigorous processes and authorial judgement to present the collective meaning of research outputs; the findings of qualitative studies - and sometimes mixed-methods and quantitative research - are pooled. We describe three exemplary designs: the scoping review, the meta-ethnography and the rapid realist review. Scoping reviews aim to provide an overview of the evidence/knowledge or to answer questions regarding the nature and diversity of the evidence/knowledge available. Meta-ethnographies intend to systematically compare data from primary qualitative studies to identify and develop new overarching concepts, theories, and models. Rapid realist reviews aim to provide a knowledge synthesis by looking at complex questions while responding to time-sensitive and emerging issues. It addresses the question, 'what works, for whom, in what circumstances, and how?'We discuss these three designs' context, what, why, when and how. We provide examples of published studies and sources for further reading, including manuals and guidelines for conducting and reporting these studies. Finally, we discuss attention points for the research team concerning the involvement of necessary experts and stakeholders and choices to be made during the research process.