Community based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Crocker, Thomas F; Ensor, Joie; Lam, Natalie; Jordão, Magda; Bajpai, Ram; Bond, Matthew; Forster, Anne; Riley, Richard D; Andre, Deirdre; Brundle, Caroline; Ellwood, Alison; Green, John; Hale, Matthew; Mirza, Lubena; Morgan, Jessica; Patel, Ismail; Patetsini, Eleftheria; Prescott, Matthew; Ramiz, Ridha; Todd, Oliver; Walford, Rebecca; Gladman, John; Clegg, Andrew

Abstract

To synthesise evidence of the effectiveness of community based complex interventions, grouped according to their intervention components, to sustain independence for older people. Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, clinicaltrials.gov, and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from inception to 9 August 2021 and reference lists of included studies. Randomised controlled trials or cluster randomised controlled trials with ≥24 weeks' follow-up studying community based complex interventions for sustaining independence in older people (mean age ≥65 years) living at home, with usual care, placebo, or another complex intervention as comparators. Living at home, activities of daily living (personal/instrumental), care home placement, and service/economic outcomes at 12 months. Interventions were grouped according to a specifically developed typology. Random effects network meta-analysis estimated comparative effects; Cochrane's revised tool (RoB 2) structured risk of bias assessment. Grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) network meta-analysis structured certainty assessment. The review included 129 studies (74 946 participants). Nineteen intervention components, including "multifactorial action from individualised care planning" (a process of multidomain assessment and management leading to tailored actions), were identified in 63 combinations. For living at home, compared with no intervention/placebo, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review and regular follow-ups (routine review) (odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.59; moderate certainty); multifactorial action from individualised care planning including medication review without regular follow-ups (2.55, 0.61 to 10.60; low certainty); combined cognitive training, medication review, nutritional support, and exercise (1.93, 0.79 to 4.77; low certainty); and combined activities of daily living training, nutritional support, and exercise (1.79, 0.67 to 4.76; low certainty). Risk screening or the addition of education and self-management strategies to multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review may reduce odds of living at home. For instrumental activities of daily living, evidence favoured multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (standardised mean difference 0.11, 95% confidence interval 0.00 to 0.21; moderate certainty). Two interventions may reduce instrumental activities of daily living: combined activities of daily living training, aids, and exercise; and combined activities of daily living training, aids, education, exercise, and multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies. For personal activities of daily living, evidence favoured combined exercise, multifactorial action from individualised care planning, and routine review with medication review and self-management strategies (0.16, -0.51 to 0.82; low certainty). For homecare recipients, evidence favoured addition of multifactorial action from individualised care planning and routine review with medication review (0.60, 0.32 to 0.88; low certainty). High risk of bias and imprecise estimates meant that most evidence was low or very low certainty. Few studies contributed to each comparison, impeding evaluation of inconsistency and frailty. The intervention most likely to sustain independence is individualised care planning including medicines optimisation and regular follow-up reviews resulting in multifactorial action. Homecare recipients may particularly benefit from this intervention. Unexpectedly, some combinations may reduce independence. Further research is needed to investigate which combinations of interventions work best for different participants and contexts. PROSPERO CRD42019162195. [Abstract copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.]

Citation

Crocker, T. F., Ensor, J., Lam, N., Jordão, M., Bajpai, R., Bond, M., …Clegg, A. (2024). Community based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people: systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ, 384, Article e077764. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-077764

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Acceptance Date: Feb 14, 2024
• Online Publication Date: Mar 21, 2024
• Publication Date: Mar 21, 2024
• Deposit Date: Mar 25, 2024
• Journal: BMJ
• Print ISSN: 0959-8138
• Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 384
• Article Number: e077764
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-077764
• Keywords: community based complex interventions; independence; older people
• Public URL: https://keele-repository.worktribe.com/output/785129
• Publisher URL: https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-077764