ObjectivesFrailty is typically assessed in older populations. Identifying frailty in adults aged under 60 years may also have value, if it supports the delivery of timely care. We sought to identify how frailty is measured in younger populations, including evidence of the impact on patient outcomes and care.DesignA rapid review of primary studies was conducted.Data sourcesFour databases, three sources of grey literature and reference lists of systematic reviews were searched in March 2020.Eligibility criteriaEligible studies measured frailty in populations aged under 60 years using experimental or observational designs, published after 2000 in English.Data extraction and synthesisRecords were screened against review criteria. Study data were extracted with 20% of records checked for accuracy by a second researcher. Data were synthesised using a narrative approach.ResultsWe identified 268 studies that measured frailty in samples that included people aged under 60 years. Of these, 85 studies reported evidence about measure validity. No measures were identified that were designed and validated to identify frailty exclusively in younger groups. However, in populations that included people aged over and under 60 years, cumulative deficit frailty indices, phenotype measures, the FRAIL Scale, the Liver Frailty Index and the Short Physical Performance Battery all demonstrated predictive validity for mortality and/or hospital admission. Evidence of criterion validity was rare. The extent to which measures possess validity across the younger adult age (18–59 years) spectrum was unclear. There was no evidence about the impact of measuring frailty in younger populations on patient outcomes and care.ConclusionsLimited evidence suggests that frailty measures have predictive validity in younger populations. Further research is needed to clarify the validity of measures across the adult age spectrum, and explore the utility of measuring frailty in younger groups.

Impact of residual disease as a prognostic factor for survival in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer a er primary surgery (Protocol).

Background and objective Loneliness is associated with increased rates of morbidity and mortality, and is a growing public health concern in later life. This study aimed to produce an evidence-based estimate of the prevalence of loneliness amongst older people (aged 60 years and above). Study design and setting Systematic review and random-effects meta-analysis of observational studies from high income countries 2008 to 2020, identified from searches of five electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Proquest Social Sciences Premium Collection). Studies were included if they measured loneliness in an unselected population. Results Thirty-nine studies reported data on 120,000 older people from 29 countries. Thirty-one studies were suitable for meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence estimate of loneliness was 28.5% (95%CI: 23.9% - 33.2%). In twenty-nine studies reporting loneliness severity, the pooled prevalence was 25.9% (95%CI: 21.6% - 30.3%) for moderate loneliness and 7.9% (95%CI: 4.8% - 11.6%) for severe loneliness (z = -6.1, p < 0.001). Similar pooled prevalence estimates were observed for people aged 65–75 years (27.6%, 95%CI: 22.6% - 33.0%) and over 75 years (31.3%, 95%CI: 21.0% - 42.7%, z = 0.64, p = 0.52). Lower levels of loneliness were reported in studies from Northern Europe compared to South and Eastern Europe. Conclusions Loneliness is common amongst older adults affecting approximately one in four in high income countries. There is no evidence of an increase in the prevalence of loneliness with age in the older population. The burden of loneliness is an important public health and social problem, despite severe loneliness being uncommon. PROSPERO registration CRD42017060472.

Addition of specialist doctors or nurses to the first-line medical team has the potential to improve key health outcomes for residents in LTCFs.

Impact of residual disease as a prognostic factor for survival in women with advanced epithelial ovarian cancer a er primary surgery (Protocol).

Background The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic prompted the rapid implementation of new and existing digital technologies to facilitate access to health and care services during physical distancing. Older people may be disadvantaged in that regard if they are unable to use or have access to smartphones, tablets, computers, or other technologies. Objective In this study, we synthesized evidence on the impact of digital technologies on older adults’ access to health and social services. Methods We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews published from January 2000 to October 2019 using comprehensive searches of 6 databases. We looked for reviews in a population of adults aged ≥65 years in any setting, reporting outcomes related to the impact of technologies on access to health and social care services. Results A total of 7 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria, providing data from 77 randomized controlled trials and 50 observational studies. All of them synthesized findings from low-quality primary studies, 2 of which used robust review methods. Most of the reviews focused on digital technologies to facilitate remote delivery of care, including consultations and therapy. No studies examined technologies used for first contact access to care, such as online appointment scheduling. Overall, we found no reviews of technology to facilitate first contact access to health and social care such as online appointment booking systems for older populations. Conclusions The impact of digital technologies on equitable access to services for older people is unclear. Research is urgently needed in order to understand the positive and negative consequences of digital technologies on health care access and to identify the groups most vulnerable to exclusion.

ObjectivesTo identify and map evidence about the consequences of unpaid caring for all carers of older people, and effective interventions to support this carer population.DesignA rapid review of systematic reviews, focused on the consequences for carers of unpaid caring for older people, and interventions to support this heterogeneous group of carers. Reviews of carers of all ages were eligible, with any outcome measures relating to carers’ health, and social and financial well-being. Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, PsycInfo and Epistemonikos (January 2000 to January 2020). Records were screened, and included systematic reviews were quality appraised. Summary data were extracted and a narrative synthesis produced.ResultsTwelve systematic reviews reporting evidence about the consequences of caring for carers (n=6) and assessing the effectiveness of carer interventions (n=6) were included. The review evidence typically focused on mental health outcomes, with little information identified about carers’ physical, social and financial well-being. Clear estimates of the prevalence and severity of carer outcomes, and how these differ between carers and non-carers, were absent. A range of interventions were identified, but there was no strong evidence of effectiveness. In some studies, the choice of outcome measure may underestimate the full impact of an intervention.ConclusionsCurrent evidence fails to fully quantify the impacts that caring for older people has on carers’ health and well-being. Information on social patterning of the consequences of caring is absent. Systematic measurement of a broad range of outcomes, with comparison to the general population, is needed to better understand the true consequences of caring. Classification of unpaid caring as a social determinant of health could be an effective lever to bring greater focus and support to this population. Further work is needed to develop and identify suitable interventions in order to support evidence-based policymaking and practice.

ObjectivesA clear understanding of whether increases in longevity are spent in good health is necessary to support ageing, health and care-related policy.DesignWe conducted a systematic review to update and summarise evidence on trends in health expectancies, in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) high-income countries.Data sourcesFour electronic databases (MEDLINE, 1946–19 September 2019; Embase 1980–2019 week 38; Scopus 1966–22 September 2019, Health Management Information Consortium, 1979–September 2019), and the UK Office for National Statistics website (November 2019).Eligibility criteriaEnglish language studies published from 2016 that reported trends in healthy, active and/or disability-free life expectancy in an OECD high-income country.Data extraction and synthesisRecords were screened independently by two researchers. Study quality was assessed using published criteria designed to identify sources of bias in studies reporting trends, and evidence summarised by narrative synthesis.FindingsTwenty-eight publications from 11 countries were included, covering periods from 6 to 40 years, between 1970 and 2017. In most countries, gains in healthy and disability-free life expectancy do not match the growth in total life expectancy. Exceptions were demonstrated for women in Sweden, where there were greater gains in disability-free years than life expectancy. Gains in healthy and disability-free life expectancy were greater for men than women in most countries except the USA (age 85), Japan (birth), Korea (age 65) and Sweden (age 77).ConclusionAn expansion of disability in later life is evident in a number of high-income countries, with implications for the sustainability of health and care systems. The recent COVID-19 pandemic may also impact health expectancies in the longer term.