Frailty impacts older adults’ ability to recover from an acute illness, injuries and other stresses. Currently, a systematic synthesis of available interventions to prevent or reduce frailty does not exist. Therefore, we conducted a scoping review of interventions and international policies designed to prevent or reduce the level of frailty in community-dwelling older adults. we conducted a scoping review using the framework of Arksey and O'Malley. We systematically searched articles and grey literature to identify interventions and policies that aimed to prevent or reduce the level of frailty. fourteen studies were included: 12 randomised controlled trials and 2 cohort studies (mean number of participants 260 (range 51–610)), with most research conducted in USA and Japan. The study quality was moderate to good. The interventions included physical activity; physical activity combined with nutrition; physical activity plus nutrition plus memory training; home modifications; prehabilitation (physical therapy plus exercise plus home modifications) and comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA). Our review showed that the interventions that significantly reduced the number of frailty markers present or the prevalence of frailty included the physical activity interventions (all types and combinations), and prehabilitation. The CGA studies had mixed findings. nine of the 14 studies reported that the intervention reduced the level of frailty. The results need to be interpreted with caution, as only 14 studies using 6 different definitions of frailty were retained. Future research could combine interventions targeting more frailty markers including cognitive or psychosocial well-being.

Geriatric assessment is a multidisciplinary diagnostic process that evaluates the older adult’s medical, psychological, social, and functional capacity. No systematic review of the use of geriatric assessment in oncology has been conducted. The goals of this systematic review were: 1) to provide an overview of all geriatric assessment instruments used in the oncology setting; 2) to examine the feasibility and psychometric properties of those instruments; and 3) to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of geriatric assessment in predicting or modifying outcomes (including the impact on treatment decision making, toxicity of treatment, and mortality). We searched Medline, Embase, Psychinfo, Cinahl, and the Cochrane Library for articles published in English, French, Dutch, or German between January 1, 1996, and November 16, 2010, reporting on cross-sectional, longitudinal, interventional, or observational studies that assessed the feasibility or effectiveness of geriatric assessment instruments. The quality of articles was evaluated using relevant quality assessment frameworks. We identified 83 articles that reported on 73 studies. The quality of most studies was poor to moderate. Eleven studies examined psychometric properties or diagnostic accuracy of the geriatric assessment instruments used. The assessment generally took 10–45min. Geriatric assessment was most often completed to describe a patient’s health and functional status. Specific domains of geriatric assessment were associated with treatment toxicity in 6 of 9 studies and with mortality in 8 of 16 studies. Of the four studies that examined the impact of geriatric assessment on the cancer treatment decision, two found that geriatric assessment impacted 40%–50% of treatment decisions. Geriatric assessment in the oncology setting is feasible, and some domains are associated with adverse outcomes. However, there is limited evidence that geriatric assessment impacted treatment decision making. Further research examining the effectiveness of geriatric assessment on treatment decisions and outcomes is needed.

Cancer is a disease that affects mostly older adults. Older adults often have other chronic health conditions in addition to cancer and may have different health priorities, both of which can impact cancer treatment decision-making. However, no systematic review of factors that influence an older cancer patient's decision to accept or decline cancer treatment has been conducted. Systematic review of the literature published between inception of the databases and February 2013. Dutch, English, French or German articles reporting on qualitative studies, cross-sectional, longitudinal observational or intervention studies describing factors why older adults accepted or declined cancer treatment examining actual treatment decisions were included. Ten databases were used. Two independent reviewers reviewed manuscripts and performed data abstraction using a standardized form and the quality of studies was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Of 17,343 abstracts reviewed, a total of 38 studies were included. The majority focused on breast and prostate cancer treatment decisions and most studies used a qualitative design. Important factors for accepting treatment were convenience and success rate of treatment, seeing necessity of treatment, trust in the physician and following the physician's recommendation. Factors important for declining cancer treatment included concerns about the discomfort of the treatments, fear of side effects and transportation difficulties. Although the reasons why older adults with cancer accepted or declined treatment varied considerably, the most consistent determinant was physician recommendation. Further studies using large, representative samples and exploring decision-making incorporating health literacy and comorbidity are needed.

As the population is aging, the number of persons living with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) is expected to increase. This review seeks to answer two research questions from the perspectives of older adults with MCC, their caregivers and their health care providers (HCPs): 1) What are the health and social care needs of community-dwelling older adults with MCC and their caregivers? and 2) How do social and structural determinants of health impact these health and social care needs? We conducted a scoping review guided by a refinement of the Arksey & O’Malley framework. Articles were included if participants were 55 years or older and have at least two chronic conditions. We searched 7 electronic databases. The data were summarized using thematic analysis. Thirty-six studies were included in this review: 28 studies included participants with MCC; 12 studies included HCPs; 5 studies included caregivers. The quality of the studies ranged from moderate to good. Five main areas of needs were identified: need for information; coordination of services and supports; preventive, maintenance and restorative strategies; training for older adults, caregivers and HCPs to help manage the older adults’ complex conditions; and the need for person-centred approaches. Structural and social determinants of health such as socioeconomic status, education and access influenced the needs of older adults with MCC. The review highlights that most of the needs of older adults with MCC focus on lack of access to information and coordination of care. The main structural and social determinants that influenced older adults’ needs were their level of education/health literacy and their socioeconomic status.

Our previous systematic review of geriatric assessment (GA) in oncology included a literature search up to November 2010. However, the quickly evolving field warranted an update. Aims of this review: (i) provide an overview of all GA instruments developed and/or in use in the oncology setting; (ii) evaluate effectiveness of GA in predicting/modifying outcomes (e.g. treatment decision impact, treatment toxicity, mortality, use of care). Systematic review of literature published between November 2010 and 10 August 2012. English, Dutch, French and German-language articles reporting cross-sectional or longitudinal, intervention or observational studies of GA instruments were included. Data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Library. Two researchers independently reviewed abstracts, abstracted data and assessed the quality using standardized forms. A meta-analysis method of combining proportions was used for the outcome impact of GA on treatment modification with studies included in this update combined with those included in our previous systematic review on the use of GA. Thirty-five manuscripts reporting 34 studies were identified. Quality of most studies was moderate to good. Eighteen studies were prospective, 11 cross-sectional and 5 retrospective. Three studies examined treatment decision-making impact and found decisions changed for fewer than half of assessed patients (weighted percent modification is 23.2% with 95% confidence interval (20.3% to 26.1%). Seven studies reported conflicting findings regarding predictive ability of GA for treatment toxicity/complications. Eleven studies examined GA predictions of mortality, and reported that instrumental activities of daily living, poor performance status and more numerous GA deficits were associated with increased mortality risk. Other outcomes could not be meta-analyzed. Consistent with our previous review, several domains of GA are associated with adverse outcomes. However, further research examining effectiveness of GA on treatment decisions and oncologic outcomes is needed.

Cancer is a disease that mostly affects older adults. Treatment adherence is crucial to obtain optimal outcomes such as cure or improvement in quality of life. Older adults have numerous comorbidites as well as cognitive and sensory impairments that may affect adherence. The aim of this systematic review was to examine factors that influence adherence to cancer treatment in older adults with cancer. Systematic review of the literature published between inception of the databases and February 2013. English, Dutch, French and German-language articles reporting cross-sectional or longitudinal, intervention or observational studies of cancer treatment adherence were included. Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Web of Science, ASSIA, Ageline, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), SocAbstracts and the Cochrane Library. Two reviewers reviewed abstracts and abstracted data using standardized forms. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool 2011. Twenty-two manuscripts were identified reporting on 18 unique studies. The quality of most studies was good. Most studies focused on women with breast cancer and adherence to adjuvant hormonal therapy. More than half of the studies used data from administrative or clinical databases or chart reviews. The adherence rate varied from 52% to 100%. Only one qualitative study asked older adults about reasons for non-adherence. Factors associated with non-adherence varied widely across studies. Non-adherence was common across studies but little is known about the factors influencing non-adherence. More research is needed to investigate why older adults choose to adhere or not adhere to their treatment regimens taking into account their multimorbidity.