BackgroundAs the population is aging, the number of persons living with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) is expected to increase. This review seeks to answer two research questions from the perspectives of older adults with MCC, their caregivers and their health care providers (HCPs): 1) What are the health and social care needs of community-dwelling older adults with MCC and their caregivers? and 2) How do social and structural determinants of health impact these health and social care needs?MethodsWe conducted a scoping review guided by a refinement of the Arksey & O’Malley framework. Articles were included if participants were 55 years or older and have at least two chronic conditions. We searched 7 electronic databases. The data were summarized using thematic analysis.ResultsThirty-six studies were included in this review: 28 studies included participants with MCC; 12 studies included HCPs; 5 studies included caregivers. The quality of the studies ranged from moderate to good. Five main areas of needs were identified: need for information; coordination of services and supports; preventive, maintenance and restorative strategies; training for older adults, caregivers and HCPs to help manage the older adults’ complex conditions; and the need for person-centred approaches. Structural and social determinants of health such as socioeconomic status, education and access influenced the needs of older adults with MCC.ConclusionThe review highlights that most of the needs of older adults with MCC focus on lack of access to information and coordination of care. The main structural and social determinants that influenced older adults’ needs were their level of education/health literacy and their socioeconomic status.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12877-018-0925-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Aim The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of self‐management interventions for older adults with cancer and to determine the effective components of said interventions. Methods We conducted a systematic review of self‐management interventions for older adults (65+) with cancer guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analysis statement. We conducted an exhaustive search of the following databases: Ageline, AMED, ASSIA, CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, and Sociological Abstracts. We assessed for quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and Down & Black for quasi‐experimental studies, with data synthesized in a narrative and tabular format. Results Sixteen thousand nine hundred and eight‐five titles and abstracts were screened, subsequently 452 full‐text papers were reviewed by two independent reviewers, of which 13 full‐text papers were included in the final review. All self‐management interventions included in this review measured Quality of Life; other outcomes included mood, self‐care activity, supportive care needs, self‐advocacy, pain intensity, and analgesic intake; only one intervention measured frailty. Effective interventions were delivered by a multidisciplinary teams (n = 4), nurses (n = 3), and mental health professionals (n = 1). Self‐management core skills most commonly targeted included: problem solving; behavioural self‐monitoring and tailoring; and settings goals and action planning. Conclusions Global calls to action argue for increased emphasize on self‐management but presently, few interventions exist that explicitly target the self‐management needs of older adults with cancer. Future work should focus on explicit pathways to support older adults and their caregivers to prepare for and engage in cancer self‐management processes and behaviours.

No abstract

Background Cancer is a disease that predominantly affects older adults, and several organizations recommend the completion of a geriatric assessment to help with cancer treatment decision-making. Owing to a shortage of geriatric teams and the vast number of older adults diagnosed with cancer each year, a web-based geriatric assessment may improve access to geriatric assessment for older adults. We systematically reviewed the literature to obtain the latest evidence for the design of our web-based geriatric assessment tool Comprehensive Health Assessment for My Plan. Objective This review aimed to probe the following questions: what is the impact of providing health test results to older adults in a web-based environment without the presence of a health care provider for patient-centered outcomes, including satisfaction, perceived harm, empowerment, quality of life, and health care use (eg, hospitalization, physician visits, emergency room visits, and costs), and what recommendations do older adults and developers have for designing future apps or websites for older adults? Methods This systematic review was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis) statement. Studies were limited to publications in English that examined a web-based tool that provided test results to older adults (aged ≥65 years) without the presence of a health care provider. A health sciences librarian performed the search on November 29, 2019, on the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool Version 2018. The findings are summarized narratively and in tabular format. Results A total of 26,898 titles and abstracts were screened by 2 independent reviewers, of which 94 studies were selected for a full-text review, and 9 studies were included in this review. There were only 2 randomized controlled trials of high quality that explored the effects of receiving health care results on the web via eHealth tools for older adults or provided evidence-based recommendations for designing such tools. Older adults were generally satisfied with receiving screening results via eHealth tools, and several studies suggested that receiving health screening results electronically improved participants’ quality of life. However, user interfaces that were not designed with older adults in mind and older adults’ lack of confidence in navigating eHealth tools proved challenging to eHealth uptake and use. All 9 studies included in this systematic review made recommendations on how to design eHealth tools that are intuitive and useful for older adults. Conclusions eHealth tools should incorporate specific elements to ensure usability for older adults. However, more research is required to fully elucidate the impact of receiving screening and results via eHealth tools without the presence of a health care provider for patient-centered outcomes in this target population.