Older adults (n = 113) participated in focus groups discussing their use of and attitudes about technology in the context of their home, work, and healthcare. Participants reported using a wide variety of technology items, particularly in their homes. Positive attitudes (i.e., likes) outnumbered negative attitudes (i.e., dislikes), suggesting that older adults perceive the benefits of technology use to outweigh the costs of such use. Positive attitudes were most frequently related to how the technology supported activities, enhanced convenience, and contained useful features. Negative attitudes were most frequently associated with technology creating inconveniences, unhelpful features, as well as security and reliability concerns. Given that older adults reported more positive than negative attitudes about the technologies they use, these results contradict stereotypes that older adults are afraid or unwilling to use technology. These findings also highlight the importance of perceived benefits of use and ease of use for models of technology acceptance. Emphasizing the benefits of technology in education and training programs may increase future technology adoption.

Although persons with dementia (PWD) and their family caregivers need in-home support for common neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS), few if any assistive technologies are available to help manage NPS. This implementation study tested the feasibility and adoption of a touch screen technology, the Companion, that delivers psychosocial, nondrug interventions to PWD in their home to address individual NPS and needs. Interventions were personalized and delivered in-home for a minimum of 3 weeks. Post-intervention measures indicated the technology was easy to use, significantly facilitated meaningful and positive engagement, and simplified caregivers’ daily lives. Although intervention goals were met, caregivers had high expectations of their loved-one’s ability to regain independence. Care recipients used the system independently, but were limited by cognitive and physical impairments. We conclude the Companion can help manage NPS and offer caregiver respite at home. These data provide important guidance for design and deployment of care technology for the home.

Patients with RET rearranged adenocarcinomas represent a rare and heterogeneous NSCLC subgroup. In some contrast to published data, we see a high prevalence of current and former smokers in our white RET cohort. The significance of co-occurring aberrations, so far, is unclear.

The efficacy of SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in patients with hematological malignancies (HM) appears limited due to disease and treatment-associated immune impairment. We conducted a systematic review of prospective studies published from 10/12/2021 onwards in medical databases to assess clinical efficacy parameters, humoral and cellular immunogenicity and adverse events (AE) following two doses of COVID-19 approved vaccines. In 57 eligible studies reporting 7393 patients, clinical outcomes were rarely reported and rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection (range 0–11.9%), symptomatic disease (0–2.7%), hospital admission (0–2.8%), or death (0–0.5%) were low. Seroconversion rates ranged from 38.1–99.1% across studies with the highest response rate in myeloproliferative diseases and the lowest in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Patients with B-cell depleting treatment had lower seroconversion rates as compared to other targeted treatments or chemotherapy. The vaccine-induced T-cell response was rarely and heterogeneously reported (26.5–85.9%). Similarly, AEs were rarely reported (0–50.9% ≥1 AE, 0–7.5% ≥1 serious AE). In conclusion, HM patients present impaired humoral and cellular immune response to COVID-19 vaccination with disease and treatment specific response patterns. In light of the ongoing pandemic with the easing of mitigation strategies, new approaches to avert severe infection are urgently needed for this vulnerable patient population that responds poorly to current COVID-19 vaccine regimens.

Objective Recent meta‐analyses on dose–response relationships of SSRIs are largely based on indirect evidence. We analyzed RCTs directly comparing different SSRI doses. Method Systematic literature search for RCTs. Two raters independently screened articles and extracted data. Across SSRIs, doses defined as low, medium, and high doses, based on drug manufacturers’ product monographs, were analyzed in pairwise random‐effects meta‐analyses and in a sensitivity network meta‐analysis with regard to differences in antidepressive efficacy (primary outcome). We also analyzed all direct comparisons of different dosages of specific SSRIs. (Prospero CRD42018081031). Results Out of 5333 articles screened, we included 33. Comparisons of dosage groups (low, medium, and high) resulted in only small and clinically non‐significant differences for SSRIs as a group, the strongest relating to medium vs low doses (SMD: −0.15 [95%‐CI: −0.28; −0.01) and not sustained in a sensitivity analysis. Among different doses of specific SSRIs, no statistically significant trend emerged for efficacy at higher doses, but 60 mg/day fluoxetine are statistically significantly inferior to 20 mg/day. Paroxetine results are inconclusive: 10 mg/day are inferior to higher doses, but 30 and 40 mg/day are inferior to 20 mg/day. Meaningful effects cannot be ruled out for certain drugs and dosages, often investigated in only one trial. Dropout rates increase with dose—particularly due to side effects. Network meta‐analyses supported our findings. Conclusions There is no conclusive level I or level II evidence of a clinically meaningful dose–response relationship of SSRIs as a group or of single substances. High SSRI doses are not recommended as routine treatment.

No abstract

Older adults may benefit from using technology in their everyday lives. However, adults over 65 may need more training than their younger counterparts given they have had less experience with technology. In this study, 113 adults between the ages of 65 and 85 participated in focus group interviews discussing their training needs and preferences for technology items used in the home. Participants expressed an interest in receiving additional training, particularly for specific tasks. Participants also discussed preferences for various characteristics of training, such as who should conduct the training and for their preferred method of training. One of the most frequently discussed preferences was for self-training using text materials, such as a manual.

No abstract