Literature Collection

AIM: To pool existing studies to assess the overall effectiveness of integrated care for older adults (ICOPE)-based interventions in improving depressive symptoms in older adults. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Ten databases were systematically searched from inception to 15 July 2023 and the search was last updated on 2 September 2023. METHODS: Standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated using random effects models. RoB 2 and GRADEpro GDT were used to assess the methodological quality and confidence in the cumulative evidence. Funnel plots, egger's test and begg's test were used to analyse publication bias. Sensitivity, subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. RESULTS: The results of 18 studies showed ICOPE-based interventions had a significant effect on improving depressive symptoms (SMD = -.84; 95% CI, -1.20 to -.3647; p < .001; 18 RCTs, 5010 participants; very low-quality evidence). Subgroup analysis showed the intervention group was characterized by mean age (70-80 years old), intervention duration between 6 to 12 months, gender (female <50%), non-frail older adults, depressed older adults and mixed integration appeared to be more effective. Sensitivity analysis found the results to be robust. CONCLUSION: ICOPE-based interventions may be a potentially effective alternative approach to reduce depressive symptoms in the older adults. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Healthcare professionals are expected to use ICOPE as one of the interventions for depressive symptoms in older adults, and this ICOPE could provide more comprehensive care services for older adults to reduce depressive symptoms. IMPACT: ICOPE-based interventions may be a potentially effective alternative approach to reduce depressive symptoms in the older adults. ICOPE-based interventions had a significant effect on reducing depressive symptoms in the older adults. The intervention group characterized by mean age of older adults, intervention duration, gender ratio, health condition and integration types may influence the effect size. REPORTING METHOD: According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No Patient or Public Contribution.

OBJECTIVE: Conduct a systematic review of existing studies on intrinsic capacity (IC) and a meta-analysis of studies to assess the overall effectiveness of ICOPE in improving IC in older adults. METHODS: Ten databases were systematically searched from inception to November 8, 2023, and the search was last updated on January 2, 2024. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The main outcomes were IC (cognition, psychological, sensory, vitality and locomotion). RESULTS: The results showed ICOPE had a significant effect in improving cognitive function (SMD = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.56, p < 0.001, 12 RCTs, 7926 participants) and depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.70; 95% CI, -0.96 to -0.43, p < 0.001, 26 RCTs, 11,034 participants), but there was no statistically significant difference in improving locomotion (SMD = 0.16; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.34, p = 0.098, 3 RCTs, 1580 participants). Meta-regression analysis shows that intervention duration should be paid attention to when the source of heterogeneity is discussed on the cognition. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that ICOPE may be a potentially effective approach to help improve the IC in older adults, showing significant potential for improving cognitive function and reducing depressive symptoms in particular. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: ICOPE is expected to provide effective strategies to enhance issues such as IC and may be an innovative way to improve the overall health of older adults. This result provides strong support for geriatric nursing practice and encourages the adoption of ICOPE as a viable nursing approach to promote healthy ageing.

BACKGROUND: Primary care encounters are common among patients at risk for suicide. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of implementing population-based suicide care (SC) in primary care for suicide attempt prevention. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a stepped-wedge, cluster randomized implementation trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02675777). SETTING: 19 primary care practices within a large health care system in Washington State, randomly assigned launch dates. PATIENTS: Adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with primary care visits from January 2015 to July 2018. INTERVENTION: Practice facilitators, electronic medical record (EMR) clinical decision support, and performance monitoring supported implementation of depression screening, suicide risk assessment, and safety planning. MEASUREMENTS: Clinical practice and patient measures relied on EMR and insurance claims data to compare usual care (UC) and SC periods. Primary outcomes included documented safety planning after population-based screening and suicide risk assessment and suicide attempts or deaths (with self-harm intent) within 90 days of a visit. Mixed-effects logistic models regressed binary outcome indicators on UC versus SC, adjusted for randomization stratification and calendar time, accounting for repeated outcomes from the same site. Monthly outcome rates (percentage per 10 000 patients) were estimated by applying marginal standardization. RESULTS: During UC, 255 789 patients made 953 402 primary care visits and 228 255 patients made 615 511 visits during the SC period. The rate of safety planning was higher in the SC group than in the UC group (38.3 vs. 32.8 per 10 000 patients; rate difference, 5.5 [95% CI, 2.3 to 8.7]). Suicide attempts within 90 days were lower in the SC group than in the UC group (4.5 vs. 6.0 per 10 000 patients; rate difference, -1.5 [CI, -2.6 to -0.4]). LIMITATION: Suicide care was implemented in combination with care for depression and substance use. CONCLUSION: Implementation of population-based SC concurrent with a substance use program resulted in a 25% reduction in the suicide attempt rate in the 90 days after primary care visits. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institute of Mental Health.