Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The long-term care setting poses unique challenges and opportunities for effective knowledge translation. The objectives of this review are to (1) synthesize barriers and facilitators to implementing evidence-based guidelines in long-term care, as defined as a home where residents require 24-h nursing care, and 50% of the population is over the age of 65 years; and (2) map barriers and facilitators to the Behaviour Change Wheel framework to inform theory-guided knowledge translation strategies. Methods Following the guidance of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Guidance Series and the ENTREQ reporting guidelines, we systematically reviewed the reported experiences of long-term care staff on implementing evidence-based guidelines into practice. MEDLINE Pubmed, EMBASE Ovid, and CINAHL were searched from the earliest date available until May 2021. Two independent reviewers selected primary studies for inclusion if they were conducted in long-term care and reported the perspective or experiences of long-term care staff with implementing an evidence-based practice guideline about health conditions. Appraisal of the included studies was conducted using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist and confidence in the findings with the GRADE-CERQual approach. Findings After screening 2680 abstracts, we retrieved 115 full-text articles; 33 of these articles met the inclusion criteria. Barriers included time constraints and inadequate staffing, cost and lack of resources, and lack of teamwork and organizational support. Facilitators included leadership and champions, well-designed strategies, protocols, and resources, and adequate services, resources, and time. The most frequent Behaviour Change Wheel components were physical and social opportunity and psychological capability. We concluded moderate or high confidence in all but one of our review findings. Conclusions Future knowledge translation strategies to implement guidelines in long-term care should target physical and social opportunity and psychological capability, and include interventions such as environmental restructuring, training, and education.

The aim is to investigate whether social isolation and loneliness are associated with changes in grip strength, gait speed, BMD, and fractures. Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) Comprehensive Cohort participants aged 65 years and older at baseline (2012-2015) who completed the three-year follow-up interview (2015-2018) were included in this analysis (n = 11,344). Social isolation and loneliness were measured using the CLSA social isolation index (CLSA-SII, range 0-10). We calculated absolute and percent change in grip strength (kg) and gait speed (m/s) and annualized absolute (g/cm2) and percent change in femoral neck and total hip BMD during the three-year follow-up. Self-reported incident fractures of all skeletal sites in the previous 12 months were measured at three-year follow-up. Multivariable analyses were conducted. Odd ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) are reported. The mean age (standard deviation [SD]) was 72.9 (5.6) years and 49.9% were female. The mean (SD) of CLSA-SII at baseline was 3.5 (1.4). Mean absolute and percentage change (SD) in grip strength (kg) and gait speed (m/s) were -1.33 (4.60), -3.02% (16.65), and -0.05 (0.17), -3.06% (19.28) during the three-year follow-up, respectively. Mean annualized absolute (g/cm2) and percentage change (SD) in femoral neck and total hip BMD were -0.004 (0.010), -0.47% (1.43) and -0.005 (0.009), -0.57% (1.09), respectively. 345 (3.1%) participants had incident fractures. As CLSA-SII increased (per one unit change), participants had 1.13 (adjusted OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.01-1.27) times greater odds for incident fractures. The interaction term between the CLSA-SII and centre for epidemiology studies depression 9 scale (CES-D 9) for self-reported incident fractures was shown (interaction OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00-1.04). Socially isolated and lonely older adults were more likely to have had incident fractures, but social isolation was not associated with the three-year changes in grip strength, gait speed, or BMD.

To describe delirium incidence before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and examine factors associated with delirium incidence in the long-term care setting. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Ontario long-term care residents without severe cognitive impairment or baseline delirium with an assessment between February 1, 2019, and March 31, 2021. Data were collected from the interRAI Minimum Data Set (MDS) 2.0. The outcome of interest was delirium development. Selected independent variables were entered into univariate longitudinal generalized estimating equations, followed by multivariate analysis. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) are reported. A total of 63,913 residents were included within the comparison sample from February 2019 to February 2020. The pandemic sample consisted of 54,867 residents from March 2020 to March 2021. Incidence of delirium in the comparison sample was 3.4% (2158 residents) compared to 3.2% (1746 residents) in the pandemic sample (P = 0.06). Residents who were older, cognitively impaired, and increasingly frail had greater odds of developing delirium. Increased odds were associated with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.07-1.51) and anxiolytic use (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.01-1.25). Residents who were newly admitted (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.60-0.71) and those dependent for activities of daily living (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.33-0.64) had lower odds of delirium development. The incidence of delirium did not differ between the year prior to and the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, indicating that preventative interventions employed by long-term care homes may have been effective. Long-term care residents who are older, frail, cognitively impaired, or had unstable health would benefit from targeted interventions to prevent delirium. Newly admitted residents or those dependent in activities of daily living had lower odds of developing delirium, which could indicate under detection in these groups.

The objective was to compare home care episode, standardised assessment, and service patterns in Ontario's publicly funded home care system during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., March to September 2020) using the previous year as reference. We plotted monthly time series data from March 2019 to September 2020 for home care recipients in Ontario, Canada. Home care episodes were linked to interRAI Home Care assessments, interRAI Contact Assessments, and home care services. Health status measures from the patient's most recent interRAI assessment were used to stratify the receipt of personal support, nursing, and occupational or physical therapy services. Significant level and slope changes were detected using Poisson, beta, and linear regression models. The March to September 2020 period was associated with significantly fewer home care admissions, discharges, and standardised assessments. Among those assessed with the interRAI Home Care assessment, significantly fewer patients received any personal support services. Among those assessed with either interRAI assessment and identified to have rehabilitation needs, significantly fewer patients received any therapy services. Among patients receiving services, patients received significantly fewer hours of personal support and fewer therapy visits per month. By September 2020, the rate of admissions and services had mostly returned to pre-pandemic levels, but completion of standardised assessments lagged behind. The first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with substantial changes in Ontario's publicly funded home care system. Although it may have been necessary to prioritise service delivery during a crisis situation, standardised assessments are needed to support individualised patient care and system-level monitoring. Given the potential disruptions to home care services, future studies should examine the impact of the pandemic on the health and well-being of home care recipients and their caregiving networks.

ObjectivesTo describe: (1) methods used to engage long-term care (LTC) residents living with dementia in research and guideline development; (2) the outcomes of engagement; and (3) barriers and facilitators to engagement.DesignScoping review.Search strategyWe conducted searches in Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), APA PsychInfo (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), Medline (OVID), Embase (Elsevier), Web of Science and the Cochrane database, and a structured grey literature search in July 2021 and updated in March 2023. We included studies that described or evaluated resident engagement, defined as including residents living with dementia in the process of developing healthcare guidelines or research which could include collaborators or partners in planning, execution or dissemination of the guideline or research. Title, abstracts and full-texts were screened for eligibility by two team members using a pilot-tested process. Data were extracted from included studies independently and in duplicate by two team members using a pre-tested data extraction form. Results were narratively synthesised according to the research question they addressed.ResultsWe identified three studies for inclusion. Residents were engaged at the beginning of the research projects through interviews, focus groups, and consultations. None of the included articles described the outcomes of engagement. Barriers to engagement were predominantly at the resident level, including impaired verbal communication limiting resident’s abilities to participate in discussions, while increased time to support engagement was reported as a barrier at the resident and research team levels.ConclusionsWe found a small body of literature describing the engagement of LTC residents in health research and guideline development. Future work should explore alternative methods to engage LTC residents living with dementia, including art-based methods, and the effect of including resident engagement. Guideline developers and researchers should ensure adequate time and human resources are allocated to support engagement.

Frailty in older adults is on the rise with the rapid aging population. Frailty is dynamic and proven to be reversible or treatable. Evidence regarding the clinical effectiveness of community-based frailty interventions is limited. Frailty rehabilitation has the potential to be an accessible community-based intervention that may enable independence. We will examine a model of frailty rehabilitation and consider key components for improving physical function, frailty, sarcopenia, and cost-effectiveness. A multiarm, parallel-group, partially blinded, randomized controlled trial will compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of OPTimizing Independence, Mobility, and Active Life (OPTIMAL) Fitness multimodal (group exercise, nutritional coaching/supplementation, medication optimization) versus OPTIMAL Fitness exercise-only and control. Participants in the OPTIMAL Fitness multimodal and exercise-only groups will attend exercise classes twice weekly for 4 months and be provided with a tailored one-hour home exercise program. We will recruit community-dwelling older adults living with frailty aged ≥65 years. Eligibility includes a FRAIL scale score of ≥2 (prefrail or frail), ability to ambulate 25 meters, follow two-step commands, and not attend another group exercise program. The target sample size is 324 participants (n = 108 per arm). The primary outcome is physical function measured via the Short Performance Physical Battery and the 400m Walk Test. Secondary outcomes include frailty change, sarcopenia, cognition, affect, quality of life, and healthcare utilization. Outcome analysis will be performed via generalized linear model analysis. Analyses will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. This protocol is guided by the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement. This trial is the first to determine whether a community-based frailty rehabilitation intervention can improve physical function in older adults with frailty and the level of intervention needed. The results from the OPTIMAL Fitness study will guide the development of a standardized program that could be implemented in global regions. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03824106 Registered January 31, 2019, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03824106.

Background Resistance and balance training are important exercise interventions for older populations living with chronic diseases. Accurately measuring if an individual is adhering to exercises as prescribed is important to determine if lack of improvement in health outcomes is because of issues with adherence. Measuring adherence to resistance and balance exercises is limited by current methods that depend heavily on self-report and are often better at and tailored towards capturing aerobic training parameters (e.g., step count, minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity). Adherence measures must meet users’ needs to be useful. Methods Using a Dillman tailored study design, we surveyed researchers who conduct exercise trials, clinicians who prescribe exercise for older adults, and older adults to determine: (1) how they are currently measuring adherence; (2) barriers and facilitators they have experienced to measurement; and (3) the information they would like collected about adherence (e.g., repetitions, sets, intensity, duration, frequency, quality). Surveys were disseminated internationally through professional networks, professional organizations, and social media. Participants completed an online survey between August 2021 and April 2022. Results Eighty-eight older adults, 149 clinicians, and 41 researchers responded to the surveys. Most clinicians and researchers were between the ages of 30 and 39 years, and 70.0% were female. Most older adults were aged 70–79 years, and 46.6% were female. Diaries and calendars (either analog or digital) were the most common current methods of collecting adherence data. Users would like information about the intensity and quality of exercises completed that are presented in clear, easy to use formats that are meaningful for older adults where all data can be tracked in one place. Most older adults did not measure adherence because they did not want to, while clinicians most frequently reported not having measurement tools for adherence. Time, resources, motivation, and health were also identified as barriers to recording adherence. Conclusions Our work provides information about current methods of measuring exercise adherence and suggestions to inform the design of future adherence measures. Future measures should comprehensively track adherence data in one place, including the intensity and quality of exercises.

IntroductionPatient engagement is important when developing health guidelines to ensure high-quality and patient-centred recommendations. However, patient engagement in research and guideline development remains suboptimal, particularly for vulnerable populations, including residents with dementia living in long-term care (LTC) who are often not included in research and guideline development because of perceived and actual challenges with their health, memory, concentration and communication. Optimal strategies and methods for engaging LTC residents with dementia in research and guideline development remain unknown.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a scoping review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension to answer the research questions: (1) What methods have been used to engage LTC residents with dementia in research and guideline development? (2) What are the outcomes of resident engagement? (3) What are the barriers and facilitators to resident engagement? Systematic searches for peer-reviewed articles will be conducted in: Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), APA PsycINFO (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), Medline (OVID), Embase (Elsevier), Web of Science, and Cochrane Database and in grey literature. Two team members will screen articles and extract data. Results will be presented according to the research question they address. We will engage stakeholders including residents, family members, healthcare providers and representatives from relevant organisations throughout the study.Ethics and disseminationThe scoping review will synthesise what is known about resident engagement in research and guideline development. It may identify gaps in the literature about the optimal methods to engage residents in performing research and developing guidelines and reveal opportunities for new methods. The results will be helpful for researchers and policy-makers seeking to develop guidelines and researchers engaging in topics that reflect the priorities and experiences of people with dementia. Results of the scoping review will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations, and a one-page lay summary will be shared with our engaged stakeholders.

Background Home care supports older adults living in the community by providing medical, rehabilitative, and personal care at home. Across Canada there is wide variability in public funding models for home care, which may also be paid for privately. Our objective was to compare individual characteristics across different home care payment groups and examine associations between sociodemographic factors, health status, and private payment for care. Methods We included formal home care users from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) between 2015 and 2021 and classified them into three groups based on how much of their home care was paid for out-of-pocket: none, part, or all. We used descriptive statistics to compare the individual and home care characteristics of the three groups. We used unadjusted and adjusted multinomial logistic regression models to examine associations with the home care payment groups. Results Of 44,817 participants in the CLSA, 3,580 were formal home care users. Using weighted proportions, 6.8% of the CLSA were home care users, and of these 46.2% reported paying nothing out-of-pocket, 12.7% paid partially, and 41.0% paid all costs. Individuals who paid all costs reported the best health, whereas those who paid partially reported the worst. Meal preparation/homemaking and housework/maintenance services were more commonly paid for privately, while medical care was more likely to be publicly funded. Higher-income individuals were more likely to pay entirely out-of-pocket and large provincial variations were noted across payment groups. Conclusions Private home care is common in Canada, particularly for non-medical services. Income-related disparities may limit access for those unable to pay, contributing to inequities in aging. Policies ensuring equitable access to essential services will be critical as demand for home care grows.

Background Long-term care (LTC) homes in Canada provide essential care for individuals requiring ongoing support. While data-informed care planning is increasingly advocated for, its implementation remains inconsistent, limiting its potential to enhance resident-centered care. The interRAI long-term care facilities assessment (LTCF) and real-time location systems (RTLS) are two sources of routinely collected data that can inform care planning. However, how they are currently used to inform care planning and what hinders or supports their use remains unclear. We describe the current use of routinely collected data in LTC and identify barriers and facilitators to informing care planning from the perspectives of staff, residents, and family caregivers in Nova Scotia, Canada. Methods We employed Sally Thorne’s Interpretive Description qualitative design with purposeful sampling: 10 LTC residents, 14 family members, and 22 staff (12 nurses, 2 nursing assistants, 2 physiotherapy/occupational therapy assistants, plus one administrator, one recreational/music therapist, and one dietitian). Data collection occurred in two stages: initial interviews (individual or focus group) followed by care observations, with additional interviews as needed after observation. Each session, lasting for one hour, was audio recorded, transcribe verbatim for analysis. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis by multiple coders. Results Findings revealed that while interRAI LTCF and RTLS data were available, their integration into care planning was inconsistent due to outdated admission records, data interpretation challenges, communication gaps, and staff shortages. Residents and families often lacked awareness of care plans, limiting their engagement in decision-making. However, facilitators such as incorporating residents’ social histories, leveraging RTLS to track activity patterns, ensuring regular data updates, and fostering interdisciplinary collaboration improved data utilization. Enhanced training, structured implementation strategies, and tailored communication methods were identified as essential to strengthening data-informed care planning. Conclusions Although routinely collected data have the potential to enhance resident-centered care planning, systemic barriers hinder their effective use in LTC settings. Addressing these challenges through targeted interventions, improved staff training, and knowledge user engagement can optimize data-driven decision-making and improve resident outcomes. Future efforts should focus on integrating digital health tools and structured implementation frameworks to maximize the benefits of data-informed care planning in LTC homes. Clinical Trial Number Not applicable.