Background: Despite the significant benefits of palliative care (PC) services for cancer patients, multiple challenges hinder the provision of PC services for these patients. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are witnessing a sharp growth in the burden of non-communicable diseases. There is a significant gap between demand and supply of PC in LMICs in current health services. This review aims to synthesise evidence from previous reviews and deliver a more comprehensive mapping of the existing literature about personal, system, policy, and organisational challenges and possible facilitators on the provision of PC services for cancer patients in LMICs. Methods: A systematic review of reviews was performed following PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, Web of Sciences, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library databases were searched to identify review papers published between 2000 and 2018 that considered challenges and possible facilitators to PC provision. A modified socioecological model was used as a framework for analysing and summarising findings. Results: Fourteen reviews were included. The reviews varied in terms of aim, settings, and detail of the challenges and possible facilitators. The main challenges of personal and health care systems included knowledge deficits and misunderstandings from patients, families, the general public, and health care providers about PC; and inadequate number of trained workforce. Besides, limited physical infrastructure, insufficient drugs for symptom relief and lack of a comprehensive national plan for implementing PC were the core organisational and policy level challenges that were recognised. Furthermore, the main possible facilitators that were identified included provision of adequate training for health care providers and health education for patients, families and the general public to enhance their knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes to PC. Finally, involvement of policymakers and making drugs available for symptom relief should also be in place to improve the health care systems. Conclusions: Understanding challenges to the provision of PC for people with cancer could help in the development of a PC pathway in LMICs. This knowledge could be used as a guide to develop an intervention programme to improve PC. Political influence and support are also required to ensure the sustainability and the provision of high-quality PC.

Background: Cognitive frailty refers to the coexistence of physical frailty and cognitive impairment, and is associated with many adverse health outcomes. Although cognitive frailty is prevalent in older people, motor-cognitive training is effective at enhancing cognitive and physical function. We proposed a virtual reality (VR) simultaneous motor-cognitive training program, which allowed older people to perform daily activities in a virtual space mimicking real environments. Objective: We aimed to (1) explore the feasibility of offering VR simultaneous motor-cognitive training to older people with cognitive frailty and (2) compare its effects with an existing motor-cognitive training program in the community on the cognitive function and physical function of older people with cognitive frailty. Methods: A two-arm (1:1), assessor-blinded, parallel design, randomized controlled trial was employed. The eligibility criteria for participants were: (1) aged ≥60 years, (2) community dwelling, and (3) with cognitive frailty. Those in the intervention group received cognitive training (ie, cognitive games) and motor training (ie, cycling on an ergometer) simultaneously on a VR platform, mimicking the daily living activities of older people. Those in the control group received cognitive training (ie, cognitive games) on tablet computers and motor training (ie, cycling on the ergometer) sequentially on a non-VR platform. Both groups received a 30-minute session twice a week for 8 weeks. Feasibility was measured by adherence, adverse outcomes, and successful learning. The outcomes were cognitive function, physical frailty level, and walking speed. Results: Seventeen participants were recruited and randomized to either the control group (n=8) or intervention group (n=9). At baseline, the median age was 74.0 years (IQR 9.5) and the median Montreal Cognitive Assessment score was 20.0 (IQR 4.0). No significant between-group differences were found in baseline characteristics except in the number of chronic illnesses (P=.04). At postintervention, the intervention group (Z=–2.67, P=.01) showed a significantly larger improvement in cognitive function than the control group (Z=–1.19, P=.24). The reduction in physical frailty in the intervention group (Z=–1.73, P=.08) was similar to that in the control group (Z=–1.89, P=.06). Improvement in walking speed based on the Timed Up-and-Go test was moderate in the intervention group (Z=–0.16, P=.11) and greater in the control group (Z=–2.52, P=.01). The recruitment rate was acceptable (17/33, 52%). Both groups had a 100% attendance rate. The intervention group had a higher completion rate than the control group. Training was terminated for one participant (1/9, 11%) due to minimal VR sickness (Virtual Reality Sickness Questionnaire score=18.3/100). Two participants (2/8, 25%) in the control group withdrew due to moderate leg pain. No injuries were observed in either group. Conclusions: This study provides preliminary evidence that the VR simultaneous motor-cognitive training is effective at enhancing the cognitive function of older people with cognitive frailty. The effect size on frailty was close to reaching a level of significance and was similar to that observed in the control group. VR training is feasible and safe for older people with cognitive frailty. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04467216; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04467216

Background: Cognitive frailty refers to a clinical syndrome in which physical frailty and mild cognitive impairment coexist. Motor-cognitive training and virtual reality (VR) have been used to launch various therapeutic modalities to promote health in older people. The literature advocates that motor-cognitive training and VR are effective in promoting the cognitive and physical function of older people. However, the effects on older people with cognitive frailty are unclear. Objective: This study examined the effects of VR motor-cognitive training (VRMCT) on global cognitive function, physical frailty, walking speed, visual short-term memory, inhibition of cognitive interference, and executive function in older people with cognitive frailty. Methods: This study used a multicentered, assessor-blinded, 2-parallel-group randomized controlled trial design. Participants were recruited face-to-face in 8 older adult community centers. Eligible participants were aged ≥60 years, were community dwelling, lived with cognitive frailty, had no dementia, and were not mobility restricted. In the intervention group, participants received VRMCT led by interventionists with 16 one-hour training sessions delivered twice per week for 8 weeks. In the control group, participants received the usual care provided by the older adult community centers that the investigators did not interfere with. The primary outcome was global cognitive function. The secondary outcomes included physical frailty, walking speed, verbal short-term memory, inhibition of cognitive interference, and executive function. Data were collected at baseline (T0) and the week after the intervention (T1). Generalized estimating equations were used to examine the group, time, and interaction (time × group) effects on the outcomes. Results: In total, 293 eligible participants enrolled in the study. The mean age of the participants was 74.5 (SD 6.8) years. Most participants were female (229/293, 78.2%), had completed primary education (152/293, 52.1%), were married (167/293, 57.2%), lived with friends (127/293, 43.3%), and had no VR experience (232/293, 79.5%). In the intervention group, 81.6% (119/146) of participants attended >80% (13/16, 81%) of the total number of sessions. A negligible number of participants experienced VR sickness symptoms (1/146, 0.7% to 5/146, 3%). VRMCT was effective in promoting global cognitive function (interaction effect: P=.03), marginally promoting executive function (interaction effect: P=.07), and reducing frailty (interaction effect: P=.03). The effects were not statistically significant on other outcomes. Conclusions: VRMCT is effective in promoting cognitive functions and reducing physical frailty and is well tolerated and accepted by older people with cognitive frailty, as evidenced by its high attendance rate and negligible VR sickness symptoms. Further studies should examine the efficacy of the intervention components (eg, VR vs non-VR or dual task vs single task) on health outcomes, the effect of using technology on intervention adherence, and the long-term effects of the intervention on older people with cognitive frailty at the level of daily living. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04730817; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04730817

Background: Immersive virtual reality (IVR) applications are gaining popularity in health care education. They provide an uninterrupted, scaled environment capable of simulating the full magnitude of sensory stimuli present in busy health care settings and increase students’ competence and confidence by providing them with accessible and repeatable learning opportunities in a fail-safe environment. Objective: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of IVR teaching on the learning outcomes and experiences of undergraduate health care students compared with other teaching methods. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, and Scopus were searched (last search on May 2022) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-experimental studies published in English between January 2000 and March 2022. The inclusion criteria were studies involving undergraduate students majoring in health care, IVR teaching, and evaluations of students’ learning outcomes and experiences. The methodological validity of the studies was examined using the Joanna Briggs Institute standard critical appraisal instruments for RCTs or quasi-experimental studies. The findings were synthesized without a meta-analysis using vote counting as the synthesis metric. A binomial test with P<.05 was used to test for statistical significance using SPSS (version 28; IBM Corp). The overall quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool. Results: A total of 17 articles from 16 studies totaling 1787 participants conducted between 2007 and 2021 were included. The undergraduate students in the studies majored in medicine, nursing, rehabilitation, pharmacy, biomedicine, radiography, audiology, or stomatology. The IVR teaching domains included procedural training (13/16, 81%), anatomical knowledge (2/16, 12%), and orientation to the operating room setting (1/16, 6%). The quality of the 75% (12/16) of RCT studies was poor, with unclear descriptions of randomization, allocation concealment, and outcome assessor blinding procedures. The overall risk of bias was relatively low in the 25% (4/16) of quasi-experimental studies. A vote count showed that 60% (9/15; 95% CI 16.3%-67.7%; P=.61) of the studies identified similar learning outcomes between IVR teaching and other teaching approaches regardless of teaching domains. The vote count showed that 62% (8/13) of the studies favored using IVR as a teaching medium. The results of the binomial test (95% CI 34.9%-90%; P=.59) did not show a statistically significant difference. Low-level evidence was identified based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool. Conclusions: This review found that undergraduate students had positive learning outcomes and experiences after engaging with IVR teaching, although the effects may be similar to those of other forms of virtual reality or conventional teaching methods. Given the identification of risk of bias and low level of the overall evidence, more studies with a larger sample size and robust study design are required to evaluate the effects of IVR teaching. Trial Registration: International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) CRD42022313706; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=313706

Background: The dose-response relation for spinal ropivacaine is undetermined, and there are few data available for obstetric patients. Methods: In a prospective, randomized, double-blind investigation, the authors studied 72 patients undergoing elective cesarean delivery. An epidural catheter was placed at the L2-L3 vertebral interspace. Lumbar puncture was then performed at the L3-L4 vertebral interspace, and patients were randomized to receive a dose of spinal ropivacaine diluted to 3 ml with normal saline: 10 mg (n = 12), 15 mg (n = 20), 20 mg (n = 20), or 25 mg (n = 20). Sensory changes assessed by ice and pin prick and motor changes assessed by modified Bromage score were recorded at timed intervals. A dose was considered effective if an upper sensory level to pin prick of T7 or above was achieved and epidural supplementation was not required intraoperatively. Results: Anesthesia was successful in 8.3, 45, 70, and 90% of the 10-, 15-, 20-, and 25-mg groups, respectively. A sigmoid dose-response curve and a probit log dose-response plot were obtained, and the authors determined the ED50 (95% confidence interval) to be 16.7 (14.1-18.8) mg and the ED95 (95% confidence interval) to be 26.8 (23.6-34.1) mg. Duration of sensory and motor block and degree of motor block, but not onset of anesthesia, were positively related to dose. Conclusions: The ED50 and estimated ED95 for spinal ropivacaine were 16.7 and 26.8 mg, respectively. Ropivacaine is a suitable agent for spinal anesthesia for cesarean delivery.