Conectar
Reducing sedentary behaviour (SB) in older adults is a promising strategy to promote healthy ageing. However, to develop more effective interventions, more in-depth information is needed on how existing interventions work. The present realist review aims to identify the working mechanisms and contextual preconditions to guide the development of future interventions.
A realist review was conducted following the iterative process of Pawson and Tilley and reported following the RAMESES publication standards.
Evidence was searched in four databases: EMBASE, PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus, and in the grey literature.
All study types and designs were included. Studies conducted in older adults with a mean age of 60 years or older, providing information on the context, mechanisms and/or outcomes of interventions aimed at the reduction of SB were eligible for inclusion and appraised for relevance and rigour.
All data were coded by two independent reviewers. Sections that contained relevant information to refine, refute or confirm the initial programme theory were given a code. Based on these codes, context-mechanism-outcome configurations were made, and a final programme theory was developed.
In total, 58 studies, from 61 articles, were eligible. The review revealed three important contexts for changes in SB: the (1) motivation, (2) opportunities and (3) capabilities of older adults. Depending on the context, other behaviour change techniques should be used to trigger specific mechanisms and, in turn, reduce SB. Especially, the impact of the underlying automatic processes of SB on the effectiveness of SB interventions became clear. Existing interventions primarily focus on the reflective processes guiding SB, without taking into account that SB is often an automatic response that occurs unconsciously, with little reasoning.
The effectiveness of SB interventions in older adults highly depends on the context in which the interventions occur. In particular, the context of automatic motivation should receive more attention to break the ingrained habit of SB in older adults.
Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are highly prevalent and pose a significant burden among older adults. Accurate diagnosis in this population is challenging due to the high prevalence of pre-existing lower urinary tract symptoms, inability to express symptoms and asymptomatic bacteriuria. Current diagnostic tests are unreliable, often resulting in over- and underdiagnosis. A previous pilot study proposed a higher cut-off for pyuria and identified five promising biomarkers for the diagnosis of UTIs in older adults. The UTI-GOLD study aims to validate these five new biomarkers and the higher leucocyte cut-off as a diagnostic tool for UTIs in older people in a real-world setting.
Between August 2024 and December 2027, an observational multicentre diagnostic accuracy study is being conducted across primary, secondary and tertiary healthcare facilities in the Netherlands and the UK. Adults ≥65 years with a suspected UTI will be considered eligible. Patients with pre-existing decision-making incapacity or an indwelling catheter will be excluded. UTI will be defined according to an international consensus-based reference standard. Biomarkers will be measured by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin, tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 2 and CXC motif chemokine ligand 9) and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (interleukin 6 and azurocidin). Pyuria will be quantified by automated microscopy and/or flow cytometry. Diagnostic accuracy measures will be calculated using the receiver operating characteristic curves, and sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and predictive values will be reported for optimal cut-offs.
The protocol was reviewed by the local Leiden University Medical Center research committee, who declared on 15 April 2024 that the medical research involving human subject act (Dutch abbreviation: WMO) does not apply to the current study (reference number nWMODIV2_2024025). The study also received approval from the NHS Research Ethics Committee in the UK (reference number 24/LO/0649).
The study findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at academic congresses and shared with healthcare providers.
The study was registered at clinicaltrial.gov on the 24 September 2024 with registration number: NCT06610721.
In this study, we aimed to characterize the impact of long COVID on quality of life and approaches to symptom management among Black American adults.
As a novel condition, qualitative evidence concerning long COVID symptoms and their impact on quality of life can inform the refinement of diagnostic criteria and care plans. However, the underrepresentation of Black Americans in long COVID research is a barrier to achieving equitable care for all long COVID patients.
We employed an interpretive description study design.
We recruited a convenience sample of 15 Black American adults with long COVID. We analysed the anonymized transcripts from race-concordant, semi-structured interviews using an inductive, thematic analysis approach. We followed the SRQR reporting guidelines.
We identified four themes: (1) The impact of long COVID symptoms on personal identity and pre-existing conditions; (2) Self-management strategies for long COVID symptoms; (3) Social determinants of health and symptom management; and (4) Effects on interpersonal relationships.
Findings demonstrate the comprehensive ramifications of long COVID on the lives of Black American adults. Results also articulate how pre-existing conditions, social risk factors, distrust due to systemic racism, and the nature of interpersonal relationships can complicate symptom management.
Care approaches that support access to and implementation of integrative therapies may be best suited to meet the needs of long COVID patients. Clinicians should also prioritize eliminating patient exposure to discrimination, implicit bias, and microaggressions. This is of particular concern for long COVID patients who have symptoms that are difficult to objectively quantify, such as pain and fatigue.
While patient perspectives and experiences were the focus of this study, patients were not involved with the design or conduct of the study, data analysis or interpretation, or writing the manuscript.
FreshRSS 