The evidence concerning which physical exercise characteristics are most effective for older adults is fragmented. We aimed to characterize the extent of this diversity and inconsistency and identify future directions for research by undertaking a systematic review of meta-analyses of exercise interventions in older adults. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, AMED, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science for articles that met the following criteria: (1) meta-analyses that synthesized measures of improvement (e.g., effect sizes) on any outcome identified in studies of exercise interventions; (2) participants in the studies meta-analyzed were adults aged 65+ or had a mean age of 70+; (3) meta-analyses that included studies of any type of exercise, including its duration, frequency, intensity, and mode of delivery; (4) interventions that included multiple components (e.g., exercise and cognitive stimulation), with effect sizes that were computed separately for the exercise component; and (5) meta-analyses that were published in any year or language. The characteristics of the reviews, of the interventions, and of the parameters improved through exercise were reported through narrative synthesis. Identification of the interventions linked to the largest improvements was carried out by identifying the highest values for improvement recorded across the reviews. The study included 56 meta-analyses that were heterogeneous in relation to population, sample size, settings, outcomes, and intervention characteristics. The largest effect sizes for improvement were found for resistance training, meditative movement interventions, and exercise-based active videogames. The review identified important gaps in research, including a lack of studies investigating the benefits of group interventions, the characteristics of professionals delivering the interventions associated with better outcomes, and the impact of motivational strategies and of significant others (e.g., carers) on intervention delivery and outcomes.

Care home residents are often unable to complete health-related quality of life questionnaires for themselves because of prevalent cognitive impairment. This study compared care home resident and staff proxy responses for two measures, the EQ-5D-5L and HowRU. a prospective cohort study recruited residents ≥60 years across 24 care homes who were not receiving short stay, respite or terminal care. Resident and staff proxy EQ-5D-5L and HowRu responses were collected monthly for 3 months. Weighted kappa statistics and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) adjusted for clustering at the care home level were used to measure agreement between resident and proxies for each time point. The effect of staff and resident baseline variables on agreement was considered using a multilevel mixed effect regression model. 117, 109 and 104 matched pairs completed the questionnaires at 1, 2 and 3 months, respectively. When clustering was controlled for, agreement between resident and staff proxy EQ-5D-5L responses was fair for mobility (ICC: 0.29) and slight for all other domains (ICC ≤ 0.20). EQ-5D Index and Quality-Adjusted Life Year scores (proxy scores higher than residents) showed better agreement than EQ-5D-VAS (residents scores higher than proxy). HowRU showed only slight agreement (ICC ≤ 0.20) between residents and proxies. Staff and resident characteristics did not influence level of agreement for either index. the levels of agreement for EQ-5D-5L and HowRU raise questions about their validity in this population.

Background: Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) bring together multidisciplinary teams in a structured process to improve care quality. How QICs can be used to support healthcare improvement in care homes is not fully understood. Methods: A realist evaluation to develop and test a programme theory of how QICs work to improve healthcare in care homes. A multiple case study design considered implementation across 4 sites and 29 care homes. Observations, interviews and focus groups captured contexts and mechanisms operating within QICs. Data analysis classified emerging themes using context-mechanism-outcome configurations to explain how NHS and care home staff work together to design and implement improvement. Results: QICs will be able to implement and iterate improvements in care homes where they have a broad and easily understandable remit; recruit staff with established partnership working between the NHS and care homes; use strategies to build relationships and minimise hierarchy; protect and pay for staff time; enable staff to implement improvements aligned with existing work; help members develop plans in manageable chunks through QI coaching; encourage QIC members to recruit multidisciplinary support through existing networks; facilitate meetings in care homes and use shared learning events to build multidisciplinary interventions stepwise. Teams did not use measurement for change, citing difficulties integrating this into pre-existing and QI-related workload. Conclusions: These findings outline what needs to be in place for health and social care staff to work together to effect change. Further research needs to consider ways to work alongside staff to incorporate measurement for change into QI.

Exercise has multiple benefits for people living with dementia. A programme of group exercise classes for people with dementia and their family carers has been established in a University sports centre. This study aims to explore the impact of this programme on participants with dementia and their carers. A mixed-methods design including a prospective, repeated measures cohort study followed by focus groups was employed. Physiological and cognitive outcome measures were repeated at baseline and three months in a cohort of people with dementia attending a group exercise class. Focus groups on the participants’ experiences and their perceptions of the impact of the exercise class on their lives were then conducted. The results were analysed and mapped on a model, to illustrate the components that most likely promote participation. Sixteen participants (n = 8 with dementia, and n = 8 carers) were recruited, and completed both baseline and follow up assessments. Positive mean differences were found in physical activity (4.44), loneliness (1.75), mood (1.33) and cognition (1.13). Ten participants were included in the focus groups, which found that accessibility of the exercise venue, opportunities for socialisation and staff who were experienced working with people living with dementia were key to participants reporting benefits. The four key themes from the focus group data were synthesised to produce a model outlining the components that might generate a positive impact of the exercise classes and promote participation. Exercise classes for people with dementia can be delivered with success in novel environments such as University sports centres. There is some indication of improvement over a short period of time. The model derived from this study will inform strategies to promote attendance at dementia-friendly exercise classes.

Introduction This protocol describes a study of a quality improvement collaborative (QIC) to support implementation and delivery of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) in UK care homes. The QIC will be formed of health and social care professionals working in and with care homes and will be supported by clinical, quality improvement and research specialists. QIC participants will receive quality improvement training using the Model for Improvement. An appreciative approach to working with care homes will be encouraged through facilitated shared learning events, quality improvement coaching and assistance with project evaluation. Methods and analysis The QIC will be delivered across a range of partnering organisations which plan, deliver and evaluate health services for care home residents in four local areas of one geographical region. A realist evaluation framework will be used to develop a programme theory informing how QICs are thought to work, for whom and in what ways when used to implement and deliver CGA in care homes. Data collection will involve participant observations of the QIC over 18 months, and interviews/focus groups with QIC participants to iteratively define, refine, test or refute the programme theory. Two researchers will analyse field notes, and interview/focus group transcripts, coding data using inductive and deductive analysis. The key findings and linked programme theory will be summarised as context-mechanism-outcome configurations describing what needs to be in place to use QICs to implement service improvements in care homes. Ethics and dissemination The study protocol was reviewed by the National Health Service Health Research Authority (London Bromley research ethics committee reference: 205840) and the University of Nottingham (reference: LT07092016) ethics committees. Both determined that the Proactive HEAlthcare of Older People in Care Homes study was a service and quality improvement initiative. Findings will be shared nationally and internationally through conference presentations, publication in peer-reviewed journals, a graphical illustration and a dissemination video.

The PRomoting Activity, Independence and Stability in Early Dementia (PrAISED) study delivered an exercise and functional activity programme to participants living with dementia. A Randomised Controlled Trial showed no measurable benefits in activities of daily living, physical activity or quality of life. To explore participants’ responses to PrAISED and explain why an intervention that might be expected to have produced measurable health gains did not do so. A process evaluation using qualitative methods, comprising interviews and researcher notes. Data were collected in participants’ homes or remotely by telephone or videoconferencing. A total of 88 interviews were conducted with 44 participants living with dementia (n = 32 intervention group; n = 12 control group) and 39 caregivers. A total of 69 interviews were conducted with 26 therapists. Participants valued the intervention as proactively addressing health issues that were of concern to them, and as a source of social contact, interaction, information and advice. Facilitators to achieving positive outcomes included perceiving progress towards desired goals, positive expectations, therapists’ skills and rapport with participants, and caregiver support. Barriers included: cognitive impairment, which prevented independent engagement and carry-over between sessions; chronic physical health problems and intercurrent acute illness and injury; ‘tapering’ (progressively infrequent supervision intended to help develop habits and independent activity); and the COVID-19 pandemic. Self-directed interventions may not be appropriate in the context of dementia, even in the mild stages of the condition. Dementia-specific factors affected outcomes including caregiver support, rapport with therapists, availability of supervision, motivational factors and the limitations of remote delivery. The effects of cognitive impairment, multimorbidity and frailty overwhelmed any positive impact of the intervention. Maintenance of functional ability is valued, but in the face of inevitable progression of disease, other less tangible outcomes become important, challenging how we frame ‘health gain’ and trial outcomes.