Background and Objectives Studies reporting an association between hearing loss and depression in older adults are conflicting and warrant a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence. Research Design and Methods A search of academic databases (e.g., MEDLINE) and gray literature (e.g., OpenGrey) identified relevant articles published up to July 17, 2018. Cross-sectional or cohort designs were included. Outcome effects were computed as odds ratios (ORs) and pooled using random-effects meta-analysis (PROSPERO: CRD42018084494). Results A total of 147,148 participants from 35 studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty-four studies were cross-sectional and 11 were cohort designs. Overall, hearing loss was associated with statistically significantly greater odds of depression in older adults (OR = 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.31−1.65). When studies were stratified by design, hearing loss was associated with greater odds of depression in cross-sectional studies (OR = 1.54, 95% CI = 1.31−1.80) and cohort studies (OR = 1.39, 95% CI = 1.16 − 1.67), and there was no difference between cross-sectional or cohort effect estimates (Q = 0.64, p = .42). There was no effect of moderator variables (i.e., hearing aid use) on the association between hearing loss and depression, but these findings must be interpreted with caution. There was no presence of publication bias but certainty in the estimation of the overall effect was classified as “low.” Discussion and Implications Older adults may experience increased odds of depression associated with hearing loss, and this association may not be influenced by study or participant characteristics.

Objective Weight‐biased attitudes and views held by health care professionals can have a negative impact on the patient‐provider relationship and the provision of care, but studies have found mixed results about the extent and nature of bias, which warrants a review of the evidence. Methods A systematic review and random‐effects meta‐analysis were conducted by including studies up to January 12, 2021. Results A total of 41 studies met inclusion criteria, with 17 studies providing sufficient data to be meta‐analyzed. A moderate pooled effect (standardized mean difference = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.37‐0.96) showed that health care professionals demonstrate implicit weight bias. Health care professionals also report explicit weight bias on the Fat Phobia Scale, Antifat Attitudes Scale, and Attitudes Towards Obese Persons Scale. Findings show that medical doctors, nurses, dietitians, psychologists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech pathologists, podiatrists, and exercise physiologists hold implicit and/or explicit weight‐biased attitudes toward people with obesity. A total of 27 different outcomes were used to measure weight bias, and the overall quality of evidence was rated as very low. Conclusions Future research needs to adopt more robust research methods to improve the assessment of weight bias and to inform future interventions to address weight bias among health care professionals.

This study examined whether standard cognitive training, tailored cognitive training, transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), standard cognitive training + tDCS, or tailored cognitive training + tDCS improved cognitive function and functional outcomes in participants with PD and mild cognitive impairment (PD-MCI). Forty-two participants with PD-MCI were randomized to one of six groups: (1) standard cognitive training, (2) tailored cognitive training, (3) tDCS, (4) standard cognitive training + tDCS, (5) tailored cognitive training + tDCS, or (6) a control group. Interventions lasted 4 weeks, with cognitive and functional outcomes measured at baseline, post-intervention, and follow-up. The trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR: 12614001039673). While controlling for moderator variables, Generalized Linear Mixed Models (GLMMs) showed that when compared to the control group, the intervention groups demonstrated variable statistically significant improvements across executive function, attention/working memory, memory, language, activities of daily living (ADL), and quality of life (QOL; Hedge's g range = 0.01 to 1.75). More outcomes improved for the groups that received standard or tailored cognitive training combined with tDCS. Participants with PD-MCI receiving cognitive training (standard or tailored) or tDCS demonstrated significant improvements on cognitive and functional outcomes, and combining these interventions provided greater therapeutic effects.