Background Admission avoidance hospital at home provides active treatment by healthcare professionals in the patient's home for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital inpatient care, and always for a limited time period. This is the third update of the original review. Objectives To determine the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with admission avoidance hospital at home compared with inpatient hospital care. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, two other databases, and two trials registers on 2 March 2016. We checked the reference lists of eligible articles. We sought unpublished studies by contacting providers and researchers who were known to be involved in the field. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials recruiting participants aged 18 years and over. Studies comparing admission avoidance hospital at home with acute hospital inpatient care. Data collection and analysis We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We performed meta-analysis for trials that compared similar interventions and reported comparable outcomes with sufficient data, requested individual patient data from trialists, and relied on published data when this was not available. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for the most important outcomes.

Analysis 2.1. Comparison 2 Early discharge hospital at home versus inpatient care for older people with a mix of conditions, Outcome 1 Mortality at 3-6 months-older people with a mix of conditions.. .. .. .. .. .. Analysis 2.2. Comparison 2 Early discharge hospital at home versus inpatient care for older people with a mix of conditions, Outcome 2 Mortality-chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. Analysis 2.3. Comparison 2 Early discharge hospital at home versus inpatient care for older people with a mix of conditions, Outcome 3 Hospital readmission at 3 months-older people with a mix of conditions.. .. .. .. .. Analysis 2.4. Comparison 2 Early discharge hospital at home versus inpatient care for older people with a mix of conditions,

This systematic review and meta-analysis has demonstrated the evidence of a consistent inverse association between frailty/prefrailty and quality of life among community-dwelling older people. Interventions targeted at reducing frailty may have the additional benefit of improving corresponding quality of life. More longitudinal analysis is required to determine this effect.

exercise interventions probably reduce fear of falling to a small to moderate degree immediately post-intervention in community-living older people. The high risk of bias in most included trials suggests findings should be interpreted with caution. High-quality trials are needed to strengthen the evidence base in this area.

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundPhysical activity (PA) levels among older adults are generally low and sedentary behaviour (SB) very common; increasing PA and reducing SB levels could have appreciable health benefits. Quantifying PA and SB patterns through the day could help in defining strategies for change. We examined within day variations in PA and SB and whether these varied by demographic factors and health status.MethodsMen aged 71-91 years participating in an established UK population-based cohort study were invited to wear a GT3x Actigraph accelerometer over the hip for one week in 2010-12. Percentages of time spent in sedentary (SB, <100 counts per minute [CPM]); in light (LIPA, 100-1040 CPM) and in moderate to vigorous PA (MVPA, >1040 CPM) were derived. Multilevel models were used to estimate the associations between demographic factors and health status and SB, LIPA and MVPA.Results1455 of 3137 men invited (46.4 %) participated and provided adequate data. Men spent 73 % of the day in SB, 23 % in LIPA and 4.5 % in MVPA (619, 197 and 39 min per day respectively). The percentage of time spent in MVPA was highest in the morning, peaking at 10-11 am (8.4 %), and then declining until the evening, with the exception of a small increase at 2-3 pm. LIPA followed a similar pattern. Conversely, SB levels were lowest in the morning and increased throughout the day, peaking at 9 pm (88 %). Men who were older, did not use active transport, had mobility limitations, were obese, depressed, had more chronic health conditions, and were smokers had lower levels of MVPA. The impacts of older age, obesity, mobility limitations and chronic diseases on LIPA, MVPA and SB were more marked in the morning than in the afternoon and evening.ConclusionsLevels of MVPA and LIPA are highest in the morning (peak at 10-11 am) and decrease during the day. SB increases through the course of the day to peak in the evening. Interventions to encourage older men to be physically active may need to take account of current PA patterns, aiming to prolong active morning bouts of PA and/or reducing SB in the afternoon and evening hours.

BackgroundThe majority of mid-life and older adults in the UK are not achieving recommended physical activity levels and inactivity is associated with many health problems. Walking is a safe, appropriate exercise. The PACE-UP trial sought to increase walking through the structured use of a pedometer and handbook, with and without support from a practice nurse trained in behaviour change techniques (BCTs). Understanding barriers and facilitators to engagement with a primary care based physical activity intervention is essential for future trials and programmes.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured telephone interviews using a topic guide with purposive samples of participants who did and did not increase their walking from both intervention groups. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and coded independently by researchers prior to performing a thematic analysis. Responsiveness to the specific BCTs used was also analysed.ResultsForty-three trial participants were interviewed in early 2014. Almost all felt they had benefitted, irrespective of their change in step-count, and that primary care was an appropriate setting.Important facilitators included a desire for a healthy lifestyle, improved physical health, enjoyment of walking in the local environment, having a flexible routine allowing for an increase in walking, appropriate self and external monitoring and support from others.Important barriers included physical health problems, an inflexible routine, work and other commitments, the weather and a mistrust of the monitoring equipment.BCTs that were reported to have the most impact included: providing information about behaviour-health link; prompting self-monitoring and review of goals and outcomes; providing feedback; providing specific information about how to increase walking; planning social support/change; and relapse prevention. Rewards were unhelpful.ConclusionsDespite our expectation that there would be a difference between the experiences of those who did and did not objectively increase their walking, we found that most participants considered themselves to have succeeded in the trial and benefitted from taking part. Barriers and facilitators were similar across demographic groups and trial outcomes. Findings indicated several BCTs on which PA trial and programme planners could focus efforts with the expectation of greatest impact as well as strong support for primary care as an appropriate venue.Trial registrationISRCTN98538934.