BACKGROUND: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is a multidimensional interdisciplinary diagnostic process focused on determining an older person's medical, psychological and functional capability in order to develop a co-ordinated and integrated care plan. CGA is not limited simply to assessment, but also directs a holistic management plan for older people, which leads to tangible interventions. While there is established evidence that CGA reduces the likelihood of death and disability in acutely unwell older people, the effectiveness of CGA for community-dwelling, frail, older people at risk of poor health outcomes is less clear.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of CGA for community-dwelling, frail, older adults at risk of poor health outcomes in terms of mortality, nursing home admission, hospital admission, emergency department visits, serious adverse events, functional status, quality of life and resource use, when compared to usual care.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, three trials registers (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov and McMaster Aging Portal) and grey literature up to April 2020; we also checked reference lists and contacted study authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials that compared CGA for community-dwelling, frail, older people at risk of poor healthcare outcomes to usual care in the community. Older people were defined as 'at risk' either by being frail or having another risk factor associated with poor health outcomes. Frailty was defined as a vulnerability to sudden health state changes triggered by relatively minor stressor events, placing the individual at risk of poor health outcomes, and was measured using objective screening tools. Primary outcomes of interest were death, nursing home admission, unplanned hospital admission, emergency department visits and serious adverse events. CGA was delivered by a team with specific gerontological training/expertise in the participant's home (domiciliary Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (dCGA)) or other sites such as a general practice or community clinic (community Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (cCGA)).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics (methods, participants, intervention, outcomes, notes) using standardised data collection forms adapted from the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) data collection form. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias for each included study and used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for outcomes of interest.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 studies involving 7893 participants across 10 countries and four continents. Regarding selection bias, 12/21 studies used random sequence generation, while 9/21 used allocation concealment. In terms of performance bias, none of the studies were able to blind participants and personnel due to the nature of the intervention, while 14/21 had a blinded outcome assessment. Eighteen studies were at low risk of attrition bias, and risk of reporting bias was low in 7/21 studies. Fourteen studies were at low risk of bias in terms of differences of baseline characteristics. Three studies were at low risk of bias across all domains (accepting that it was not possible to blind participants and personnel to the intervention). CGA probably leads to little or no difference in mortality during a median follow-up of 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.02; 18 studies, 7151 participants (adjusted for clustering); moderate-certainty evidence). CGA results in little or no difference in nursing home admissions during a median follow-up of 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.14; 13 studies, 4206 participants (adjusted for clustering); high-certainty evidence). CGA may decrease the risk of unplanned hospital admissions during a median follow-up of 14 months (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.99; 6 studies, 1716 participants (adjusted for clustering); low-certainty evidence). The effect of CGA on emergency department visits is uncertain and evidence was very low certainty (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.59; 3 studies, 873 participants (adjusted for clustering)). Only two studies (1380 participants; adjusted for clustering) reported serious adverse events (falls) with no impact on the risk; however, evidence was very low certainty (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: CGA had no impact on death or nursing home admission. There is low-certainty evidence that community-dwelling, frail, older people who undergo CGA may have a reduced risk of unplanned hospital admission. Further studies examining the effect of CGA on emergency department visits and change in function and quality of life using standardised assessments are required.
BACKGROUND: Community-based primary-level workers (PWs) are an important strategy for addressing gaps in mental health service delivery in low- and middle-income countries. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of PW-led treatments for persons with mental health symptoms in LMICs, compared to usual care. SEARCH METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, ICTRP, reference lists (to 20 June 2019). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of PW-led or collaborative-care interventions treating people with mental health symptoms or their carers in LMICs. PWs included: primary health professionals (PHPs), lay health workers (LHWs), community non-health professionals (CPs). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Seven conditions were identified apriori and analysed by disorder and PW examining recovery, prevalence, symptom change, quality-of-life (QOL), functioning, service use (SU), and adverse events (AEs). Risk ratios (RRs) were used for dichotomous outcomes; mean difference (MDs), standardised mean differences (SMDs), or mean change differences (MCDs) for continuous outcomes. For SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥0.80 large clinical effects. Analysis timepoints: T1 (<1 month), T2 (1-6 months), T3 ( >6 months) post-intervention. MAIN RESULTS: Description of studies 95 trials (72 new since 2013) from 30 LMICs (25 trials from 13 LICs). Risk of bias Most common: detection bias, attrition bias (efficacy), insufficient protection against contamination. Intervention effects *Unless indicated, comparisons were usual care at T2. "Probably", "may", or "uncertain" indicates "moderate", "low," or "very low" certainty evidence. Adults with common mental disorders (CMDs) LHW-led interventions a. may increase recovery (2 trials, 308 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.06 to 1.56); b. may reduce prevalence (2 trials, 479 participants; RR 0.42, 95%CI 0.18 to 0.96); c. may reduce symptoms (4 trials, 798 participants; SMD -0.59, 95%CI -1.01 to -0.16); d. may improve QOL (1 trial, 521 participants; SMD 0.51, 95%CI 0.34 to 0.69); e. may slightly reduce functional impairment (3 trials, 1399 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.8 to -0.15); f. may reduce AEs (risk of suicide ideation/attempts); g. may have uncertain effects on SU. Collaborative-care a. may increase recovery (5 trials, 804 participants; RR 2.26, 95%CI 1.50 to 3.43); b. may reduce prevalence although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (2 trials, 2820 participants; RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.32 to 1.01); c. may slightly reduce symptoms (6 trials, 4419 participants; SMD -0.35, 95%CI -0.63 to -0.08); d. may slightly improve QOL (6 trials, 2199 participants; SMD 0.34, 95%CI 0.16 to 0.53); e. probably has little-to-no effect on functional impairment (5 trials, 4216 participants; SMD -0.13, 95%CI -0.28 to 0.03); f. may reduce SU (referral to MH specialists); g. may have uncertain effects on AEs (death). Women with perinatal depression (PND) LHW-led interventions a. may increase recovery (4 trials, 1243 participants; RR 1.29, 95%CI 1.08 to 1.54); b. probably slightly reduce symptoms (5 trials, 1989 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.37 to -0.14); c. may slightly reduce functional impairment (4 trials, 1856 participants; SMD -0.23, 95%CI -0.41 to -0.04); d. may have little-to-no effect on AEs (death); e. may have uncertain effects on SU. Collaborative-care a. has uncertain effects on symptoms/QOL/SU/AEs. Adults with post-traumatic stress (PTS) or CMDs in humanitarian settings LHW-led interventions a. may slightly reduce depression symptoms (5 trials, 1986 participants; SMD -0.36, 95%CI -0.56 to -0.15); b. probably slightly improve QOL (4 trials, 1918 participants; SMD -0.27, 95%CI -0.39 to -0.15); c. may have uncertain effects on symptoms (PTS)/functioning/SU/AEs. PHP-led interventions a. may reduce PTS symptom prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 5.50, 95%CI 2.50 to 12.10) and depression prevalence (1 trial, 313 participants; RR 4.60, 95%CI 2.10 to 10.08); b. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs. Adults with harmful/hazardous alcohol or substance use LHW-led interventions a. may increase recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use although the actual effect range indicates it may have little-or-no effect (4 trials, 872 participants; RR 1.28, 95%CI 0.94 to 1.74); b. may have little-to-no effect on the prevalence of methamphetamine use (1 trial, 882 participants; RR 1.01, 95%CI 0.91 to 1.13) and functional impairment (2 trials, 498 participants; SMD -0.14, 95%CI -0.32 to 0.03); c. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 667 participants; SMD -0.22, 95%CI -0.32 to -0.11); d. may have uncertain effects on SU/AEs. PHP/CP-led interventions a. probably have little-to-no effect on recovery from harmful/hazardous alcohol use (3 trials, 1075 participants; RR 0.93, 95%CI 0.77 to 1.12) or QOL (1 trial, 560 participants; MD 0.00, 95%CI -0.10 to 0.10); b. probably slightly reduce risk of harmful/hazardous alcohol and substance use (2 trials, 705 participants; SMD -0.20, 95%CI -0.35 to -0.05; moderate-certainty evidence); c. may have uncertain effects on prevalence (cannabis use)/SU/AEs. PW-led interventions for alcohol/substance dependence a. may have uncertain effects. Adults with severe mental disorders *Comparisons were specialist-led care at T1. LHW-led interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on caregiver burden (1 trial, 253 participants; MD -0.04, 95%CI -0.18 to 0.11); b. may have uncertain effects on symptoms/functioning/SU/AEs. PHP-led or collaborative-care a. may reduce functional impairment (7 trials, 874 participants; SMD -1.13, 95%CI -1.78 to -0.47); b. may have uncertain effects on recovery/relapse/symptoms/QOL/SU. Adults with dementia and carers PHP/LHW-led carer interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on the severity of behavioural symptoms in dementia patients (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.26, 95%CI -0.60 to 0.08); b. may reduce carers' mental distress (2 trials, 134 participants; SMD -0.47, 95%CI -0.82 to -0.13); c. may have uncertain effects on QOL/functioning/SU/AEs. Children with PTS or CMDs LHW-led interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on PTS symptoms (3 trials, 1090 participants; MCD -1.34, 95%CI -2.83 to 0.14); b. probably have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.61, 95%CI -1.23 to 0.02) or on functional impairment (3 trials, 1092 participants; MCD -0.81, 95%CI -1.48 to -0.13); c. may have little-or-no effect on AEs. CP-led interventions a. may have little-to-no effect on depression symptoms (2 trials, 602 participants; SMD -0.19, 95%CI -0.57 to 0.19) or on AEs; b. may have uncertain effects on recovery/symptoms(PTS)/functioning.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PW-led interventions show promising benefits in improving outcomes for CMDs, PND, PTS, harmful alcohol/substance use, and dementia carers in LMICs.
OBJECTIVE: We conducted this systematic review to support the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force in updating its 2014 recommendation on screening for cognitive impairment in older adults. Our review addressed the direct evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for cognitive impairment versus no screening, the test accuracy of screening instruments to detect mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia, and the benefits and harms of treatment for MCI and mild to moderate dementia among community-dwelling older adults age 65 years and older.
DATA SOURCES: We performed an updated search of MEDLINE, PubMed Publisher-Supplied, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies published through January 2019. We supplemented searches by examining reference lists from related articles and expert recommendations and searched federal and international trial registries for ongoing trials.
STUDY SELECTION: Two researchers reviewed 11,644 titles and abstracts and 966 full-text articles against prespecified inclusion criteria. We included test accuracy studies that included screening instruments that could be delivered in primary care in 10 minutes or less by a clinician or self-administered in 20 minutes or less compared with a reference standard. We included trials of major pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions in persons with MCI or mild to moderate dementia and large, observational studies examining adverse effects of these interventions. We conducted dual, independent critical appraisal of all provisionally included studies and abstracted all important study details and results from all studies rated fair or good quality. Data were abstracted by one reviewer and confirmed by another.
DATA ANALYSIS: We synthesized data separately for each key question and within subcategories of screening instruments and treatments. For diagnostic accuracy studies, we focused on sensitivity and specificity of instruments that were evaluated in more than one study. We conducted a qualitative synthesis of results using summary tables and figures to capture key study characteristics, sources of clinical heterogeneity, and overall results of each study. Quantitative synthesis was limited to test performance of the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) (due to insufficient number of homogeneous studies for other instruments) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved medications to treat Alzheimer’s Disease on global cognitive outcomes, global function, and harms; nonpharmacologic interventions aimed at the patient on global cognitive outcomes; and caregiver and caregiver-patient dyad interventions on caregiver burden and depression outcomes. We ran random-effects meta-analyses using the DerSimonian and Laird method and sensitivity analyses using a Restricted Likelihood Estimation Model with the Knapp-Hartung correction to calculate the pooled differences in mean changes (for continuous data) and pooled risk ratio (for binary data). We used meta-regression to explore potential effect modification by various study, population, and intervention characteristics in cases where 10 or more studies were pooled. We generated funnel plots and conducted tests for small-study effects for all pooled analyses. Using established methods, we assessed the strength of evidence for each question.
RESULTS: Screening (Key Questions 1–3): Only one trial was identified that examined the direct effect of screening for cognitive impairment on important patient outcomes, including potential harms. In that trial, at 12 months, there was no difference in health-related quality of life between those who were screened vs. not screened. Symptoms of depression and anxiety were also similar between groups at 1, 6, and 12 months as was health care utilization and advance care planning. We identified 59 studies that addressed the diagnostic accuracy of 49 screening instruments to detect cognitive impairment. Most instruments were only studied in a handful of well-designed diagnostic accuracy studies in primary care–relevant populations. The MMSE, a brief test taking 7 to 10 minutes to complete, remains the most thoroughly studied instrument. The pooled estimate across 15 studies (n=12,796) resulted in 89 percent sensitivity (95% CI, 0.85 to 0.92) and 89 percent specificity (95% CI, 0.85 to 0.93) to detect dementia at a cutoff of 23 or less or 24 or less. Other screening instruments evaluated in more than one study included the very brief instruments (≤5 minutes) of the CDT, MIS, MSQ, Mini-Cog, Lawton IADL, VF, AD8, and FAQ and the brief instruments (6 to 10 minutes) of the 7MS, AMT, MoCA, SLUMS, and TICS with sensitivity to detect dementia usually at 0.75 or higher and specificity at 0.80 or higher for all instruments. For self-administered, longer tests (>10 minutes), only the IQCODE was assessed in more than one study, with sensitivity to detect dementia ranging from 0.80 to 0.88 and specificity ranging from 0.51 to 0.91. Across all instruments, test performance was generally higher in the detection of dementia vs. mild cognitive impairment, although confidence intervals overlapped. No studies directly addressed the adverse psychological effects of screening or adverse effects from false-positive or false-negative testing. Treatment (Key Questions 4 and 5): We identified 224 trials and 3 observational studies representing more than 240,000 patients and/or caregivers that addressed the treatment or management of MCI or mild to moderate dementia. None of the treatment trials were linked with a screening program; in all cases, trial participants were persons with known MCI or dementia. Pharmacologic Interventions: Based on 45 trials (n=22,431) and three observational studies (n=190,076) that evaluated acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEIs) (i.e., donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine) and memantine, these medications may improve measures of global cognitive function in the short term, but the magnitude of change is small. In meta-analyses, the differences in changes between those on AChEIs or memantine compared with those on placebo ranged from approximately 1 to 2.5 points on the ADAS-Cog-11 and 0.5 to 1 point on the MMSE over 3 months to 3 years of followup. AChEIs and memantine appeared to increase the likelihood of improving or maintaining patients’ global function by 15 percent (for memantine) to 50 percent (for rivastigmine) in the short term (pooled 95% confidence interval range, 0.49 to 2.69). Other outcome measures were inconsistently reported. Total adverse events and discontinuation due to adverse events were more common with AChEIs, but not memantine, compared with placebo. Rates of serious adverse events overall were not higher among those taking medications vs. placebo, but individual studies noted increased rates of serious adverse events. Trials evaluating other medications or dietary supplements (k=29; n=6,489), including discontinuing antihypertensives, 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (atorvastatin and simvastatin), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (ibuprofen, naproxen, indomethacin, and celecoxib), gonadal steroids (estrogen [plus or minus progesterone] and testosterone), and dietary supplements and vitamins (multivitamins, B vitamins, vitamin E, and omega-3 fatty acids) showed no benefit on global cognitive or physical function in persons with mild to moderate dementia or MCI. Nonpharmacologic Interventions: We identified 61 trials (n=7,847) that evaluated nonpharmacologic patient-level interventions, including cognitive-focused, exercise, and multicomponent and other interventions. Among all interventions, there was no clear benefit on global or domain-specific measures of cognitive function compared with control conditions at 3 months to 2 years followup. Effect estimates generally favored the intervention groups over control groups, but the magnitude of effect was inconsistent across trials and represented very wide confidence intervals (ranging from no effect to a large effect). Physical function outcomes, including change in activities of daily living and independent activities of daily living, as well as quality of life and mental and neuropsychiatric symptoms, were inconsistently reported. There was, however, a pattern of effect for exercise interventions, with small improvements seen in measures of physical function and symptoms for intervention groups, whereas control groups reported worsening function. Caregiver and caregiver-patient dyad interventions including psychoeducation for the caregiver and care and case management interventions, reported in 88 trials (n=14,880), resulted in a consistent benefit on caregiver burden and depression outcomes. Effect sizes were mostly small, however, and were of unclear clinical significance. Little harm was evident in the few nonpharmacologic intervention trials that reported harms.
LIMITATIONS: There is a lack of evidence around how screening for and treating MCI and early-stage dementia affects decision making outcomes. Furthermore, there has been little reproducibility in testing specific screening instruments in primary care populations. The treatment literature is limited by a lack of consistency in the specific outcomes reported and short followup duration. It is difficult to interpret the clinical importance of the small average effects seen among treatment trials, and many measures likely have limited responsiveness for patients with less pronounced cognitive impairment. Consistent and standardized reporting of results according to meaningful thresholds of clinical significance would be helpful in interpreting the small average effects on continuous outcome measures. Other important measures such as quality of life, physical function, and institutionalization, were inconsistently reported.
CONCLUSIONS: Several brief screening instruments can adequately detect cognitive impairment, especially in populations with a higher prevalence of underlying dementia. There is no empiric evidence, however, that screening for cognitive impairment or early diagnosis of cognitive impairment improves patient, caregiver, family, or clinician decision making or other important outcomes nor causes harm. In general, there is support that AChEIs and memantine and interventions that support caregivers, including those that help coordinate care for patients and caregivers, can result in small improvements in the short term. Unfortunately, the average effects of these benefits are quite small and likely not of clinical significance. Any benefits are further limited by the commonly experienced side effects of medications and the limited availability of complex caregiver interventions. Cognitive stimulation and training, exercise interventions, and other medications and supplements showed some favorable effects on patients’ cognitive and physical function, but trial evidence lacked consistency and the estimates of benefit were imprecise. There is less evidence related to screening for and treating MCI. The test performance of the few instruments evaluated to detect MCI was lower than the sensitivity and specificity to detect dementia and there is little evidence for any pharmacologic or nonpharmacologic interventions to preserve or improve patient functioning in persons with MCI.
PURPOSE: To build an evidence-informed theoretical model describing how to support people with dementia to live well or for longer at home.
METHODS: We searched electronic databases to August 2018 for papers meeting predetermined inclusion criteria in two reviews that informed our model. We scoped literature for theoretical models of how to enable people with dementia to live at home independently, with good life quality or for longer. We systematically reviewed Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) reporting psychosocial intervention effects on time lived with dementia at home. Two researchers independently rated risk of bias. We developed our theoretical model through discussions with experts by personal, clinical and academic experiences, informed by this evidence base.
RESULTS: Our scoping review included 52 studies. We divided models identified into: values and approaches (relational and recovery models; optimising environment and activities; family carer skills and support); care strategies (family carer-focused; needs and goal-based; self-management); and service models (case management; integrated; consumer-directed). The 11 RCTs included in our systematic review, all judged at low risk of bias, described only two interventions that increased time people with dementia lived in their own homes. These collectively encompassed all these components except for consumer-directed and integrated care. We developed and revised our model, using review evidence and expert consultation to define the final model.
CONCLUSIONS: Our theoretical model describes values, care strategies and service models that can be used in the design of interventions to enable people with dementia to live well and for longer at home.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2018 registration number: CRD42018099693 (scoping review). PROSPERO 2018 registration number: CRD42018099200 (RCT systematic review).
AIMS: (1) To evaluate the effectiveness of different types of psychosocial interventions on the health-related quality of life among caregivers of individuals with dementia; and (2) To present an overview and assessment of the quality of the most recent intervention studies.
DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library electronic databases were searched to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published from 2005 to 2017. Using a Boolean search, the key words "caregivers," "dementia," and "quality of life" were combined. The search was completed in January 2018.
REVIEW METHODS: A total of 26 RCTs were included. Intervention details such as content, mode of delivery and duration were reviewed, and each study's risk of bias was assessed. The effectiveness of each type of intervention was calculated using the Hedges G and a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Multicomponent interventions, cognitive-behavioral therapy and complementary alternative medicine therapy showed significant effects on improving caregiver's health-related quality of life. Psychoeducation, social support, case management and cognitive rehabilitation therapy failed to produce significant effects.
CONCLUSION: Via this evidence-based systematic review, multicomponent interventions addressing a variety of caregiver needs can be an effective method for enhancing caregiver health-related quality of life. Further large number of studies are needed to verify this study results.
IMPACT: The findings of this study inform clinicians which interventions are effective in improving caregivers' health-related quality of life. Defining a standardized protocol for multicomponent interventions will be helpful for clinicians to apply the intervention.
IMPORTANCE: Early identification of cognitive impairment may improve patient and caregiver health outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the test accuracy of cognitive screening instruments and benefits and harms of interventions to treat cognitive impairment in older adults (≥65 years) to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force.
DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through January 2019, with literature surveillance through November 22, 2019.
STUDY SELECTION: Fair- to good-quality English-language studies of cognitive impairment screening instruments, and pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments aimed at persons with mild cognitive impairment (MCI), mild to moderate dementia, or their caregivers.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Independent critical appraisal and data abstraction; random-effects meta-analyses and qualitative synthesis.
MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity; patient, caregiver, and clinician decision-making; patient function, quality of life, and neuropsychiatric symptoms; caregiver burden and well-being.
RESULTS: The review included 287 studies with more than 280 000 older adults. One randomized clinical trial (RCT) (n = 4005) examined the direct effect of screening for cognitive impairment on patient outcomes, including potential harms, finding no significant differences in health-related quality of life at 12 months (effect size, 0.009 [95% CI, -0.063 to 0.080]). Fifty-nine studies (n = 38 531) addressed the accuracy of 49 screening instruments to detect cognitive impairment. The Mini-Mental State Examination was the most-studied instrument, with a pooled sensitivity of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85 to 0.92) and specificity of 0.89 (95% CI, 0.85 to 0.93) to detect dementia using a cutoff of 23 or less or 24 or less (15 studies, n = 12 796). Two hundred twenty-four RCTs and 3 observational studies including more than 240 000 patients or caregivers addressed the treatment of MCI or mild to moderate dementia. None of the treatment trials were linked with a screening program; in all cases, participants were persons with known cognitive impairment. Medications approved to treat Alzheimer disease (donepezil, galantamine, rivastigmine, and memantine) improved scores on the ADAS-Cog 11 by 1 to 2.5 points over 3 months to 3 years. Psychoeducation interventions for caregivers resulted in a small benefit for caregiver burden (standardized mean difference, -0.24 [95% CI, -0.36 to -0.13) over 3 to 12 months. Intervention benefits were small and of uncertain clinical importance.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Screening instruments can adequately detect cognitive impairment. There is no empirical evidence, however, that screening for cognitive impairment improves patient or caregiver outcomes or causes harm. It remains unclear whether interventions for patients or caregivers provide clinically important benefits for older adults with earlier detected cognitive impairment or their caregivers.
BACKGROUND: Interventions that enable people to remain in their own home as they age are of interest to stakeholders, yet detailed information on effective interventions is scarce. Our objective was to systematically search and synthesise evidence for the effectiveness of community-based, aged care interventions in delaying or avoiding admission to residential aged care.
METHOD: Nine databases were searched from January 2000 to February 2018 for English publications. Reference lists of relevant publications were searched. The databases yielded 55,221 citations and 50 citations were gleaned from other sources. Where there was sufficient homogeneity of study design, population, intervention and measures, meta-analyses were performed. Studies were grouped by the type of intervention: complex multifactorial interventions, minimal/single focus interventions, restorative programs, or by the target population (e.g. participants with dementia).
RESULTS: Data from 31 randomised controlled trials (32 articles) that met our inclusion criteria were extracted and analysed. Compared to controls, complex multifactorial interventions in community aged care significantly improved older adults' ability to remain living at home (risk difference - 0.02; 95% CI -0.03, - 0.00; p = 0.04). Commonalities in the 13 studies with complex interventions were the use of comprehensive assessment, regular reviews, case management, care planning, referrals to additional services, individualised interventions, frequent client contact if required, and liaison with General Practitioners. Complex interventions did not have a significantly different effect on mortality. Single focus interventions did not show a significant effect in reducing residential aged care admissions (risk difference 0, 95% CI -0.01, 0.01; p = 0.71), nor for mortality or quality of life. Subgroup analysis of complex interventions for people with dementia showed significant risk reduction for residential aged care admissions (RD -0.05; 95% CI -0.09, -0.01; p = 0.02). Compared to controls, only interventions targeting participants with dementia had a significant effect on improving quality of life (SMD 3.38, 95% CI 3.02, 3.74; p < 0.000001).
CONCLUSIONS: Where the goal is to avoid residential aged care admission for people with or without dementia, there is evidence for multifactorial, individualised community programs. The evidence suggests these interventions do not result in greater mortality and hence are safe. Minimal, single focus interventions will not achieve the targeted outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration CRD42016050086 .
BACKGROUND: Persons with dementia have twice the acute hospital use as older persons without dementia. In addition to straining overburdened healthcare systems, acute hospital use impacts patient and caregiver quality of life and is associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes including death. Reducing avoidable acute hospital use in persons with dementia is thus a global healthcare priority. However, evidence regarding the impact of health service interventions as defined by the Effective Practice and Organization of Care Cochrane Group on acute hospital use is scant and inconclusive. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesize available evidence on the impact of health service interventions on acute hospital use in community-dwelling persons with dementia compared to usual care.
METHODS: Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane CENTRAL (from 01/1995 to 08/2017). Study eligibility criteria: Randomised controlled trials measuring the impact of health service interventions on acute hospital use (proportion and mean number of emergency department visits and hospitalisations, mean number of hospital days, measured at 12 months, and at longest follow-up) in community-dwelling persons with dementia, compared to usual care. Study selection, appraisal and synthesis methods: Reviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias, with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Authors of relevant trials were queried about unpublished data. Random effects model was used for meta-analyses. Effect heterogeneity was assessed through prediction intervals, and explored using sub-group analyses.
FINDINGS: Seventeen trials provided data on 4,549 persons. Unpublished data were obtained for 13 trials, representing 65% of synthesized data. Most interventions included a case management or a self-management component. None of the outcome comparisons provided conclusive evidence supporting the hypothesis that these interventions would lead to a decrease in acute hospital use. Furthermore, prediction intervals indicated possible and important increased service use associated with these interventions, such as emergency department visits, hospital admissions, and hospital days. Subgroup analyses did not favour any type of intervention. A limitation of this study is the inclusion of any type of health service intervention, which may have increased the observed heterogeneity.
CONCLUSION: Despite a comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis, including predominantly unpublished data, no health service intervention beyond usual care was found to reduce acute hospital use in community-dwelling persons with dementia. An important increase in service use may be associated with these interventions. Further research is urgently needed to identify effective interventions for this vulnerable population to limit rising acute hospital use, associated costs and adverse outcomes. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016046444.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of occupational therapy provided at home on activities of daily living, behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) and quality of life (QOL) for people with dementia, and the effect on family carer burden, depression and QOL.
DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis.
METHODS: Eight databases were searched to February 2018. Randomised controlled trials of occupational therapy delivered at home for people with dementia and their family carers that measured ADL, and/or BPSD were included. Two independent reviewers determined eligibility, risk of bias and extracted data.
RESULTS: Fifteen trials were included (n=2063). Occupational therapy comprised multiple components (median=8 sessions). Compared with usual care or attention control occupational therapy resulted in improvements in the following outcomes for people with dementia: overall ADL after intervention (standardised means difference (SMD) 0.61, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.05); instrumental ADL alone (SMD 0.22, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.37; moderate quality); number of behavioural and psychological symptoms (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.08; moderate quality); and QOL (SMD 0.76, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.24) after the intervention and at follow-up (SMD 1.07, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.55). Carers reported less hours assisting the person with dementia (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.58 to -0.07); had less distress with behaviours (SMD -0.23, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.05; moderate quality) and improved QOL (SMD 0.99, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.33; moderate quality). Two studies compared occupational therapy with a comparison intervention and found no statistically significant results. GRADE ratings indicated evidence was very low to moderate quality.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that occupational therapy provided at home may improve a range of important outcomes for people with dementia and their family carers. Health professionals could consider referring them for occupational therapy.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42011001166.
ABSTRACTObjective:The aim of this study was to update the literature on interventions for carers of people with dementia published between 2006 and 2016 and evaluate the efficacy of psychoeducational programs and psychotherapeutic interventions on key mental health outcomes (depression, anxiety, burden, and quality of life).
METHODS: A meta-analysis was carried out of randomized controlled trials of carer interventions using MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.
RESULTS: The majority of studies were conducted in Western and Southern Europe or the United States and recruited carers of people with Alzheimer's disease or dementia grouped as a whole. The most commonly used outcome measures were depression and burden across studies. The updated evidence suggested that psychoeducation-skill building interventions delivered face-to-face can better impact on burden. Psychotherapeutic interventions underpinned by Cognitive Behavior Therapy (CBT) models demonstrated strong empirical support for treating anxiety and depression and these effects were not affected by the mode of delivery (i.e. face-to-face vs. technology). A modern CBT approach, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), seemed to be particularly beneficial for carers experiencing high levels of anxiety.
CONCLUSIONS: Future research needs to explore the efficacy of interventions on multiple clinical outcomes and which combination of interventions (components) would have the most significant effects when using CBT. The generalization of treatment effects in different countries and carers of different types of dementia also need to be addressed. More research is needed to test the efficacy of modern forms of CBT, such as ACT.
Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is a multidimensional interdisciplinary diagnostic process focused on determining an older person's medical, psychological and functional capability in order to develop a co-ordinated and integrated care plan. CGA is not limited simply to assessment, but also directs a holistic management plan for older people, which leads to tangible interventions. While there is established evidence that CGA reduces the likelihood of death and disability in acutely unwell older people, the effectiveness of CGA for community-dwelling, frail, older people at risk of poor health outcomes is less clear.
OBJECTIVES:
To determine the effectiveness of CGA for community-dwelling, frail, older adults at risk of poor health outcomes in terms of mortality, nursing home admission, hospital admission, emergency department visits, serious adverse events, functional status, quality of life and resource use, when compared to usual care.
SEARCH METHODS:
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, three trials registers (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov and McMaster Aging Portal) and grey literature up to April 2020; we also checked reference lists and contacted study authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA:
We included randomised trials that compared CGA for community-dwelling, frail, older people at risk of poor healthcare outcomes to usual care in the community. Older people were defined as 'at risk' either by being frail or having another risk factor associated with poor health outcomes. Frailty was defined as a vulnerability to sudden health state changes triggered by relatively minor stressor events, placing the individual at risk of poor health outcomes, and was measured using objective screening tools. Primary outcomes of interest were death, nursing home admission, unplanned hospital admission, emergency department visits and serious adverse events. CGA was delivered by a team with specific gerontological training/expertise in the participant's home (domiciliary Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (dCGA)) or other sites such as a general practice or community clinic (community Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (cCGA)).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:
Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics (methods, participants, intervention, outcomes, notes) using standardised data collection forms adapted from the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) data collection form. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias for each included study and used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for outcomes of interest.
MAIN RESULTS:
We included 21 studies involving 7893 participants across 10 countries and four continents. Regarding selection bias, 12/21 studies used random sequence generation, while 9/21 used allocation concealment. In terms of performance bias, none of the studies were able to blind participants and personnel due to the nature of the intervention, while 14/21 had a blinded outcome assessment. Eighteen studies were at low risk of attrition bias, and risk of reporting bias was low in 7/21 studies. Fourteen studies were at low risk of bias in terms of differences of baseline characteristics. Three studies were at low risk of bias across all domains (accepting that it was not possible to blind participants and personnel to the intervention). CGA probably leads to little or no difference in mortality during a median follow-up of 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.02; 18 studies, 7151 participants (adjusted for clustering); moderate-certainty evidence). CGA results in little or no difference in nursing home admissions during a median follow-up of 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.14; 13 studies, 4206 participants (adjusted for clustering); high-certainty evidence). CGA may decrease the risk of unplanned hospital admissions during a median follow-up of 14 months (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.99; 6 studies, 1716 participants (adjusted for clustering); low-certainty evidence). The effect of CGA on emergency department visits is uncertain and evidence was very low certainty (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.59; 3 studies, 873 participants (adjusted for clustering)). Only two studies (1380 participants; adjusted for clustering) reported serious adverse events (falls) with no impact on the risk; however, evidence was very low certainty (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:
CGA had no impact on death or nursing home admission. There is low-certainty evidence that community-dwelling, frail, older people who undergo CGA may have a reduced risk of unplanned hospital admission. Further studies examining the effect of CGA on emergency department visits and change in function and quality of life using standardised assessments are required.
