BackgroundWith an ageing population, there is an increasing societal impact of ill health in later life. People who adopt healthy behaviours are more likely to age successfully. To engage people in health promotion initiatives in mid-life, a good understanding is needed of why people do not undertake healthy behaviours or engage in unhealthy ones.MethodsSearches were conducted to identify systematic reviews and qualitative or longitudinal cohort studies that reported mid-life barriers and facilitators to healthy behaviours. Mid-life ranged from 40 to 64 years, but younger adults in disadvantaged or minority groups were also eligible to reflect potential earlier disease onset. Two reviewers independently conducted reference screening and study inclusion. Included studies were assessed for quality. Barriers and facilitators were identified and synthesised into broader themes to allow comparisons across behavioural risks.FindingsFrom 16,426 titles reviewed, 28 qualitative studies, 11 longitudinal cohort studies and 46 systematic reviews were included. Evidence was found relating to uptake and maintenance of physical activity, diet and eating behaviours, smoking, alcohol, eye care, and other health promoting behaviours and grouped into six themes: health and quality of life, sociocultural factors, the physical environment, access, psychological factors, evidence relating to health inequalities. Most of the available evidence was from developed countries. Barriers that recur across different health behaviours include lack of time (due to family, household and occupational responsibilities), access issues (to transport, facilities and resources), financial costs, entrenched attitudes and behaviours, restrictions in the physical environment, low socioeconomic status, lack of knowledge. Facilitators include a focus on enjoyment, health benefits including healthy ageing, social support, clear messages, and integration of behaviours into lifestyle. Specific issues relating to population and culture were identified relating to health inequalities.ConclusionsThe barriers and facilitators identified can inform the design of tailored interventions for people in mid-life.

BackgroundCurrent models of end-of-life care (EOLC) have been largely developed for cancer and may not meet the needs of heart failure patients. AimTo review the literature concerning conversations about EOLC between patients with heart failure and healthcare professionals, with respect to the prevalence of conversations; patients' and practitioners' preferences for their timing and content; and the facilitators and blockers to conversations.

BackgroundRecent years have seen marked improvements in end-of-life care, however concerns have been expressed that services are focused on the needs of patients with cancer. This review focuses on conversations about end-of-life care with frail and older people who have no main overriding diagnosis who are estimated to account for around 40% of deaths.AimTo investigate the attitudes of the public and healthcare professionals to advance care planning discussions with frail and older people.Design and settingSystematic literature review and narrative synthesis.MethodArticles that related to frail or older individuals and either advance care plans or discussions on end-of-life care were included. Studies of specific conditions or that focused on prognosis, capacity, or resuscitation decisions were excluded.ResultsWhile a significant minority of frail older individuals would find them unwelcome, the majority would appreciate the chance to discuss end-of-life care, yet most do not have this opportunity. Attitudes to the timing of these discussions were variable, but most perceived the risk of leaving them too late. Most doctors believed it was their professional responsibility to initiate discussions, but felt limited by time pressures and the absence of a precipitating event. A wide range of barriers were identified including the reluctance of family members to discuss end-of-life care, the passive expectation that someone else would decide on an individual’s behalf, and significant uncertainty concerning future illness and decline.ConclusionThe marked disparity between the majority of older individuals who would like the opportunity to discuss their end-of-life care and the minority that currently have this opportunity raises important questions if the wishes of this large group in society are to be respected. The challenge is to find effective ways of encouraging dialogue and choice within the constraints of the current healthcare systems and personal circumstances.

Background: Systematic reviews are vital to the pursuit of evidence-based medicine within healthcare. Screening titles and abstracts (T&Ab) for inclusion in a systematic review is an intensive, and often collaborative, step. The use of appropriate tools is therefore important. In this study, we identified and evaluated the usability of software tools that support T&Ab screening for systematic reviews within healthcare research. Methods:We identified software tools using three search methods: a web-based search; a search of the online "systematic review toolbox"; and screening of references in existing literature. We included tools that were accessible and available for testing at the time of the study (December 2018), do not require specific computing infrastructure and provide basic screening functionality for systematic reviews. Key properties of each software tool were identified using a feature analysis adapted for this purpose. This analysis included a weighting developed by a group of medical researchers, therefore prioritising the most relevant features. The highest scoring tools from the feature analysis were then included in a user survey, in which we further investigated the suitability of the tools for supporting T&Ab screening amongst systematic reviewers working in medical research.Results: Fifteen tools met our inclusion criteria. They vary significantly in relation to cost, scope and intended user community. Six of the identified tools (Abstrackr, Colandr, Covidence, DRAGON, EPPI-Reviewer and Rayyan) scored higher than 75% in the feature analysis and were included in the user survey. Of these, Covidence and Rayyan were the most popular with the survey respondents. Their usability scored highly across a range of metrics, with all surveyed researchers (n = 6) stating that they would be likely (or very likely) to use these tools in the future. Conclusions: Based on this study, we would recommend Covidence and Rayyan to systematic reviewers looking for suitable and easy to use tools to support T&Ab screening within healthcare research. These two tools consistently demonstrated good alignment with user requirements. We acknowledge, however, the role of some of the other tools we considered in providing more specialist features that may be of great importance to many researchers.

BackgroundEnd-of-life care policy has a focus on enabling patients to die in their preferred place; this is believed for most to be home. This review assesses patient preferences for place of death examining: the extent of unreported preferences, the importance of patient factors (place of care and health diagnosis) and who reports preferences.Methods and FindingsSystematic literature review of 7 electronic databases, grey literature, backwards citations from included studies and Palliative Medicine hand search. Included studies published between 2000–2015, reporting original, quantifiable results of adult UK preferences for place of death. Of 10826 articles reviewed, 61 met the inclusion criteria. Summary charts present preferences for place of death by health diagnosis, where patients were asked and who reported the preference. These charts are recalculated to include ‘missing data,’ the views of those whose preferences were not asked, expressed or reported or absent in studies. Missing data were common. Across all health conditions when missing data were excluded the majority preference was for home: when missing data were included, it was not known what proportion of patients with cancer, non-cancer or multiple conditions preferred home. Patients, family proxies and public all expressed a majority preference for home when missing data were excluded: when included, it was not known what proportion of patients or family proxies preferred home. Where patients wished to die was related to where they were asked their preference. Missing data calculations are limited to ‘reported’ data.ConclusionsIt is unknown what proportion of patients prefers to die at home or elsewhere. Reported preferences for place of death often exclude the views of those with no preference or not asked: when ‘missing data’ are included, they supress the proportion of preferences for all locations. Caution should be exercised if asserting that most patients prefer to die at home.