Explore the vast range of titles available.

People with Down syndrome have a high risk of developing Alzheimer disease dementia. However, penetrance and age at onset are considered variable, and the association of this disease with life expectancy remains unclear because of underreporting in death certificates. To assess whether the variability in symptom onset of Alzheimer disease in Down syndrome is similar to autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease and to assess its association with mortality. This study combines a meta-analysis with the assessment of mortality data from US death certificates (n = 77 347 case records with a International Classification of Diseases code for Down syndrome between 1968 to 2019; 37 900 [49%] female) and from a longitudinal cohort study (n = 889 individuals; 46% female; 3.2 [2.1] years of follow-up) from the Down Alzheimer Barcelona Neuroimaging Initiative (DABNI). A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the age at onset, age at death, and duration of Alzheimer disease dementia in Down syndrome. PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched for research reports, and OpenGray was used for gray literature. Studies with data about the age at onset or diagnosis, age at death, and disease duration were included. Pooled estimates with corresponding 95% CIs were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. The variability in disease onset was compared with that of autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease. Based on these estimates, a hypothetical distribution of age at death was constructed, assuming fully penetrant Alzheimer disease. These results were compared with real-world mortality data. In this meta-analysis, the estimate of age at onset was 53.8 years (95% CI, 53.1-54.5 years; n = 2695); the estimate of age at death, 58.4 years (95% CI, 57.2-59.7 years; n = 324); and the estimate of disease duration, 4.6 years (95% CI, 3.7-5.5 years; n = 226). Coefficients of variation and 95% prediction intervals of age at onset were comparable with those reported in autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease. US mortality data revealed an increase in life expectancy in Down syndrome (median [IQR], 1 [0.3-16] years in 1968 to 57 [49-61] years in 2019), but with clear ceiling effects in the highest percentiles of age at death in the last decades (90th percentile: 1990, age 63 years; 2019, age 65 years). The mortality data matched the limits projected by a distribution assuming fully penetrant Alzheimer disease in up to 80% of deaths (corresponding to the highest percentiles). This contrasts with dementia mentioned in 30% of death certificates but is in agreement with the mortality data in DABNI (78.9%). Important racial disparities persisted in 2019, being more pronounced in the lower percentiles (10th percentile: Black individuals, 1 year; White individuals, 30 years) than in the higher percentiles (90th percentile: Black individuals, 64 years; White individuals, 66 years). These findings suggest that the mortality data and the consistent age at onset were compatible with fully penetrant Alzheimer disease. Lifespan in persons with Down syndrome will not increase until disease-modifying treatments for Alzheimer disease are available.

Background The negative effects of loneliness on population health and wellbeing requires interventions that transcend the medical system and leverage social, cultural, and public health system resources. Group-based social interventions are a potential method to alleviate loneliness. Moreover, nature, as part of our social and health infrastructure, may be an important part of the solutions that are needed to address loneliness. The RECETAS European project H2020 (Re-imagining Environments for Connection and Engagement: Testing Actions for Social Prescribing in Natural Spaces) is an international research project aiming to develop and test the effectiveness of nature-based social interventions to reduce loneliness and increase health-related quality of life. Methods This article describes the three related randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that will be implemented: the RECETAS-BCN Trial in Barcelona (Spain) is targeting people 18+ from low socio-economic urban areas; the RECETAS-PRG Trial in Prague (Czech Republic) is addressing community-dwelling older adults over 60 years of age, and the RECETAS-HLSNK trial is reaching older people in assisted living facilities. Each trial will recruit 316 adults suffering from loneliness at least sometimes and randomize them to nature-based social interventions called “Friends in Nature” or to the control group. “Friends in Nature” uses modifications of the “Circle of Friends” methodology based on group processes of peer support and empowerment but including activities in nature. Participants will be assessed at baseline, at post-intervention (3 months), and at 6- and 12-month follow-up after baseline. Primary outcomes are the health-related quality-of-life according to 15D measure and The De Jong Gierveld 11-item loneliness scale. Secondary outcomes are health and psychosocial variables tailored to the specific target population. Nature exposure will be collected throughout the intervention period. Process evaluation will explore context, implementation, and mechanism of impact. Additionally, health economic evaluations will be performed. Discussion The three RECETAS trials will explore the effectiveness of nature-based social interventions among lonely people from various ages, social, economic, and cultural backgrounds. RECETAS meets the growing need of solid evidence for programs addressing loneliness by harnessing the beneficial impact of nature on enhancing wellbeing and social connections. Trial registration Barcelona (Spain) trial: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT05488496. Registered 29 July 2022. Prague (Czech Republic) trial: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT05522140. Registered August 25, 2022. Helsinki (Finland) trial: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT05507684. Registered August 12, 2022.

Background This study details the within-trial economic evaluation and long-term economic model of SITLESS, a multi-country, three-armed randomized controlled trial comparing a combined intervention of exercise referral schemes (ERS) enhanced by self-management strategies (SMS) against ERS alone and usual care (UC). Methods A cost-utility analysis, conducted from the base-case perspective of the National Health Service and personal and social services, estimated the incremental cost per incremental quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and years in full capability (YFC). A secondary analysis combined the costs with a broad set of outcomes within a cost-consequence framework, from a societal perspective. A Markov-type decision-analytic model was developed to project short-term changes in physical activity to long-term outcomes and costs, over a 5- and 15-year time horizon. Results The results of the within-trial analysis show that SMS+ERS is highly likely to be cost-effective compared to ERS alone (ICER €4270/QALY), but not compared to UC. Participants allocated to the SMS+ERS group also showed an improvement in YFC compared to ERS alone and UC. The long-term analysis revealed that SMS+ERS is likely to be a cost-effective option compared to ERS and UC over a 5-year, but not with a 15-year horizon, being then dominated by ERS alone. Conclusion This research provides new evidence that SMS is a cost-effective add-on to ERS strategies. This economic evaluation informs the case for further, cost-effective, refinement of lifestyle change programmes targeted to older adults, with the aim of ultimately reducing the impact of non-communicable diseases in this population.

Diet, body weight, physical activity, sedentary behavior, and breastfeeding are modifiable factors influencing the cancer burden in the European Union, shaped by underlying social, commercial, environmental, and behavioral conditions. Excess body weight has reached epidemic levels, significantly influenced by widespread intake of sugar‐sweetened beverages and ultra‐processed foods rich in sugar, fat, and salt. Consumption of red and processed meat also commonly exceeds dietary recommendations. Physical inactivity and prolonged sedentary behavior are widespread. Breastfeeding rates vary widely across Europe but are generally low, particularly in high‐income countries. To reduce cancer risk, the European Code Against Cancer, 5th edition (ECAC5) recommends a diet rich in whole grains, vegetables, legumes, and fruits, while limiting red meat and avoiding processed meat. Intake of vegetables, legumes, and fruits prevents aerodigestive tract cancers, while diets high in whole grains and low in red and processed meat reduce colorectal cancer risk. Avoiding excess body weight through diet and physical activity, and limiting prolonged sitting, decreases risk of numerous cancers. Promoting and supporting sustained breastfeeding contributes to lowering breast cancer risk. Key policy interventions, such as fiscal incentives, urban planning, marketing restrictions, and public awareness campaigns, are central to creating supportive environments for cancer prevention. As part of the 14 recommendations on cancer prevention included in the 5th edition of the European Code Against Cancer (ECAC5), we here update the cancer prevention recommendations on: diet, excess body weight, physical activity, sedentary behavior, and breastfeeding. Individuals are encouraged to take action by following a largely plant‐based diet, maintaining a healthy weight, being physically active, reducing sedentary time, and breastfeeding if possible. Policymakers are urged to support environments that make healthy choices easier, affordable, accessible, equitable, and sustainable for all.

IntroductionSITLESS is a randomised controlled trial determining whether exercise referral schemes can be enhanced by self-management strategies to reduce sedentary behaviour and increase physical activity in the long term, in community-dwelling older citizens. The intervention is complex and requires a process evaluation to understand how implementation, causal mechanisms and context shape outcomes. The specific aims are to assess fidelity and reach of the implementation, understand the contextual aspects of each intervention site, evaluate the mechanisms of impact, and explore perceived effects.Methods and analysisFollowing the Medical Research Council guidance on complex interventions, a combination of qualitative and quantitative procedures is applied, including observational checklists and attendance registries, standardised scales (ie, Marcus’s Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, Physical Activity Self-Regulation Scale and the Lubben Social Network Scale) at baseline, postintervention and follow-up assessments, semistructured questionnaires gathering contextual characteristics, and participant observations of the sessions. Semistructured interviews and focus groups with the participants and trainers are conducted at postintervention and during the follow-up to explore their experiences. Outcomes from the standardised scales are analysed as moderators within the impact evaluation. Descriptive results on context and perceived effects complement results on impact. The qualitative and quantitative findings will help to refine the logic model to finally support the interpretation of the results on the effectiveness of the intervention.Ethics and disseminationThe study design was approved by the respective Ethical Committee of Ramon Llull University, Southern Denmark, Northern Ireland and Ulm University. Participation is voluntary, and all participants are asked to sign informed consent before starting the study. A dissemination plan operationalises how to achieve a social impact by reaching academic and non-academic stakeholders. A data management plan describes the specific data sets and regulates its deposition and curation. All publications will be open access.Trial registration number NCT02629666; Pre-results.

IntroductionPromoting physical activity (PA) and reducing sedentary behaviour (SB) may exert beneficial effects on the older adult population, improving behavioural, functional, health and psychosocial outcomes in addition to reducing health, social care and personal costs. This paper describes the planned economic evaluation of SITLESS, a multicountry three-armed pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) which aims to assess the short-term and long-term effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a complex intervention on SB and PA in community-dwelling older adults, based on exercise referral schemes enhanced by a group intervention providing self-management strategies to encourage lifestyle change.Methods and analysisA within-trial economic evaluation and long-term model from both a National Health Service/personal social services perspective and a broader societal perspective will be undertaken alongside the SITLESS multinational RCT. Healthcare costs (hospitalisations, accident and emergency visits, appointment with health professionals) and social care costs (eg, community care) will be included in the economic evaluation. For the cost-utility analysis, quality-adjusted life-years will be measured using the EQ-5D-5L and capability well-being measured using the ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people (ICECAP-O) questionnaire. Other effectiveness outcomes (health related, behavioural, functional) will be incorporated into a cost-effectiveness analysis and cost-consequence analysis.The multinational nature of this RCT implies a hierarchical structure of the data and unobserved heterogeneity between clusters that needs to be adequately modelled with appropriate statistical and econometric techniques. In addition, a long-term population health economic model will be developed and will synthesise and extrapolate within-trial data with additional data extracted from the literature linking PA and SB outcomes with longer term health states.Methods guidance for population health economic evaluation will be adopted including the use of a long-time horizon, 1.5% discount rate for costs and benefits, cost consequence analysis framework and a multisector perspective.Ethics and disseminationThe study design was approved by the ethics and research committee of each intervention site: the Ethics and Research Committee of Ramon Llull University (reference number: 1314001P) (Fundació Blanquerna, Spain), the Regional Committees on Health Research Ethics for Southern Denmark (reference number: S-20150186) (University of Southern Denmark, Denmark), Office for Research Ethics Committees in Northern Ireland (ORECNI reference number: 16/NI/0185) (Queen’s University of Belfast) and the Ethical Review Board of Ulm University (reference number: 354/15) (Ulm, Germany). Participation is voluntary and all participants will be asked to sign informed consent before the start of the study.This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 634 270. This article reflects only the authors' view and the Commission is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains.The findings of the study will be disseminated to different target groups (academia, policymakers, end users) through different means following the national ethical guidelines and the dissemination regulation of the Horizon 2020 funding agency.Use of the EuroQol was registered with the EuroQol Group in 2016.Use of the ICECAP-O was registered with the University of Birmingham in March 2017.Trial registration number NCT02629666; Pre-results.

The objective of the study is to develop a pragmatic tool to prioritize clinical guideline (CG) questions for updating, the UpPriority tool. The development of this tool consisted of the following: (1) establishment of the working group, (2) generation of the initial version, (3) optimization of the tool (including an initial feasibility test, semistructured interviews, Delphi consensus survey, second feasibility test, external review, and pilot test), and (4) approval of the final version. A total of 87 participants including methodologists, clinicians, and other relevant stakeholders contributed to the development of the UpPriority tool. The tool consists of six items: (1) impact of outdated recommendations on safety, (2) availability of new relevant evidence, (3) context relevance of the clinical question, (4) methodological applicability of the clinical question, (5) user's interest, and (6) impact on access to health care. The UpPriority tool includes detailed guidance for using the tool and rating each item (using a 7-point Likert scale), for calculating and ranking the questions, and for summarizing results. The UpPriority tool could be useful for standardizing prioritization processes when updating CGs and for fostering more efficient use of resources in the CG field. •Clinical guidelines (CGs) require regular surveillance and updating to maintain their trustworthiness.•CG developers may benefit from a prioritization tool to determine which clinical questions within a CG could benefit most from being updated.•The UpPriority tool is a pragmatic tool to prioritize CG questions for updating.•The UpPriority tool consists of six items: (1) impact of outdated recommendations on safety, (2) availability of new relevant evidence, (3) context relevance of the clinical question, (4) methodological applicability of the clinical question, (5) user's interest, and (6) impact on access to health care.•The tool includes detailed guidance for using the tool and rating each item for calculating and ranking the questions, and for summarizing results.

The main objective of the Informed Health Choices (IHC) project is to teach people to assess treatment claims and make informed health choices. For this purpose, the IHC learning resources were developed for primary school children. The aim of this study is to explore students' and teachers' experience when using the IHC resources in primary schools in Barcelona (Spain). We conducted a mixed methods study for piloting the IHC resources in a convenience sample of primary schools in Barcelona. The intervention included a workshop with teachers, and nine lessons with students. We collected data using multiple approaches. We performed quantitative and qualitative analyses, and integrated the findings in a joint display. Finally, we formulated recommendations for using the IHC resources in this setting. Two schools, with a total of 143 students in 4th and 5th grade and six teachers, participated in the study. One school followed the suggested IHC teaching plan and competed all the lessons; the other school modified the plan substantially and did not complete all the lessons. Overall, students and teachers from both schools understood, were interested in, and were able to apply the content of the lessons. During the lessons, the textbook was useful for students; nevertheless, for the teachers, the usefulness of the IHC resources was variable. Teachers adapted the IHC resources to increase student participation and used Information and Communications Technologies tools. We observed more facilitators than barriers to teach the lessons. The teachers suggested some ideas to improve the lessons based on activities they developed and implemented. The integration analysis showed great convergence of the quantitative and qualitative findings. We propose seven recommendations for using the IHC resources in this setting. Students and teachers from primary schools in Barcelona showed a positive experience when using IHC resources; however, these resources should be adapted to promote classroom participation.

The aim of the study was to identify and describe strategies to prioritize the updating of systematic reviews (SRs), health technology assessments (HTAs), or clinical guidelines (CGs). We conducted an SR of studies describing one or more methods to prioritize SRs, HTAs, or CGs for updating. We searched MEDLINE (PubMed, from 1966 to August 2016) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (The Cochrane Library, Issue 8 2016). We hand searched abstract books, reviewed reference lists, and contacted experts. Two reviewers independently screened the references and extracted data. We included 14 studies. Six studies were classified as descriptive (6 of 14, 42.9%) and eight as implementation studies (8 of 14, 57.1%). Six studies reported an updating strategy (6 of 14, 42.9%), six a prioritization process (6 of 14, 42.9%), and two a prioritization criterion (2 of 14, 14.2%). Eight studies focused on SRs (8 of 14, 57.1%), six studies focused on CGs (6 of 14, 42.9%), and none were about HTAs. We identified 76 prioritization criteria that can be applied when prioritizing documents for updating. The most frequently cited criteria were as follows: available evidence (19 of 76, 25.0%), clinical relevance (10 of 76; 13.2%), and users' interest (10 of 76; 13.2%). There is wide variability and suboptimal reporting of the methods used to develop and implement processes to prioritize updating of SRs, HTAs, and CGs.

IntroductionDue to a continuous emergence of new evidence, clinical guidelines (CGs) require regular surveillance of evidence to maintain their trustworthiness. The updating of CGs is resource intensive and time consuming; therefore, updating may include a prioritisation process to efficiently ensure recommendations remain up to date. The objective of our project is to develop a pragmatic tool to prioritise clinical questions for updating within a CG.Methods and analysisTo develop the tool, we will use the results and conclusions of a systematic review of methodological research on prioritisation processes for updating and will adopt a methodological approach we have successfully implemented in a previous experience.We will perform a multistep process including (1) generation of an initial version of the tool, (2) optimisation of the tool (feasibility test of the tool, semistructured interviews, Delphi consensus survey, external review by CG methodologists and users and pilot test of the tool) and (3) approval of the final version of the tool.At each step of the process, we will (1) calculate absolute frequencies and proportions (quantitative data), (2) use content analysis to summarise and draw conclusions (qualitative data) and (3) draft a final report, discuss results and refine the previous versions of the tool. Finally, we will calculate intraclass coefficients with 95% CIs for each item and overall as indicators of agreement among reviewers.Ethics and disseminationWe have obtained a waiver of approval from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee at the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau (Barcelona). The results of the study will be published in peer-reviewed journal and communicated to interested stakeholders.The tool could support the standardisation of prioritisation processes for updating CGs and therefore have important implications for a more efficient use of resources in the CG field.