Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically changed the lives of countless members of the general population. Older adults are known to experience loneliness, age discrimination, and excessive worry. It is therefore reasonable to anticipate that they would experience greater negative outcomes related to the COVID-19 pandemic given their increased isolation and risk for complications than younger adults. Objective: This study aims to synthesize the existing research on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated isolation and protective measures, on older adults. The secondary objective is to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated isolation and protective measures, on older adults with Alzheimer disease and related dementias. Methods: A rapid review of the published literature was conducted on October 6, 2020, through a search of 6 online databases to synthesize results from published original studies regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on older adults. The Human Development Model conceptual framework–Disability Creation Process was used to describe and understand interactions between personal factors, environmental factors, and life habits. Methods and results are reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Statement. Results: A total of 135 records were included from the initial search strategy of 13,452 individual studies. Of these, 113 (83.7%) studies were determined to be of level 4 according to the levels of evidence classification by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The presence of psychological symptoms, exacerbation of ageism, and physical deterioration of aged populations were reported in the included studies. Decreased social life and fewer in-person social interactions reported during the COVID-19 pandemic were occasionally associated with reduced quality of life and increased depression. Difficulties accessing services, sleep disturbances, and a reduction of physical activity were also noted. Conclusions: Our results highlight the need for adequate isolation and protective measures. Older adults represent a heterogeneous group, which could explain the contradictory results found in the literature. Individual, organizational, and institutional strategies should be established to ensure that older adults are able to maintain social contacts, preserve family ties, and maintain the ability to give or receive help during the current pandemic. Future studies should focus on specific consequences and needs of more at-risk older adults to ensure their inclusion, both in public health recommendations and considerations made by policy makers.

Background: Patient prioritization is a strategy used to manage access to healthcare services. Patient prioritization tools (PPT) contribute to supporting the prioritization decision process, and to its transparency and fairness. Patient prioritization tools can take various forms and are highly dependent on the particular context of application. Consequently, the sets of criteria change from one context to another, especially when used in non-emergency settings. This paper systematically synthesizes and analyzes the published evidence concerning the development and challenges related to the validation and implementation of PPTs in non-emergency settings. Methods: We conducted a systematic mixed studies review. We searched evidence in five databases to select articles based on eligibility criteria, and information of included articles was extracted using an extraction grid. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed by using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The article selection process, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed by at least two reviewers independently. Results: We included 48 studies listing 34 different patient prioritization tools. Most of them are designed for managing access to elective surgeries in hospital settings. Two-thirds of the tools were investigated based on reliability or validity. Inconclusive results were found regarding the impact of PPTs on patient waiting times. Advantages associated with PPT use were found mostly in relationship to acceptability of the tools by clinicians and increased transparency and equity for patients. Conclusions: This review describes the development and validation processes of PPTs used in non-urgent healthcare settings. Despite the large number of PPTs studied, implementation into clinical practice seems to be an open challenge. Based on the findings of this review, recommendations are proposed to develop, validate, and implement such tools in clinical settings. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42018107205

Background: Wearable powered exoskeletons represent a promising rehabilitation tool for locomotor training in various populations, including in individuals with a spinal cord injury. The lack of clear evidence on how to implement a locomotor powered exoskeleton training program raises many challenges for patients, clinicians and organizations. Objective: To report determinants of implementation in clinical practice of an overground powered exoskeleton locomotor training program for persons with a spinal cord injury. Data sources: Medline, CINAHL, Web of Science. Study selection: Studies were included if they documented determinants of implementation of an overground powered exoskeleton locomotor training program for individuals with spinal cord injury. Data extraction: Eligible studies were identified by two independent reviewers. Data were extracted by one reviewer, based on constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, and validated by a second reviewer. Results: Sixty-three articles were included. 49.4% of all determinants identified were related to the intervention characteristics, 29.6% to the individuals’ characteristic and 13.5% to the inner setting. Recurrent barriers identified were the high prevalence of adverse events (e.g., skin issues, falls) and device malfunctions. Adequate training for clinicians, time and resource available, as well as discussion about patients’ expectations were identified as facilitators. Conclusions: Powered exoskeleton training is a complex intervention. The limited information on the context and the implementation process domains may represent a barrier to a successful transition from knowledge to action.

Waiting lists should be managed as fairly as possible to ensure that patients with greater or more urgent needs receive services first. Patient prioritization refers to the process of ranking referrals in a certain order based on various criteria with the aim of improving fairness and equity in the delivery of care. Despite the widespread use of patient prioritization tools (PPTs) in healthcare services, the existing literature on this subject has mainly focused on emergency settings. Evidence has not been synthesized with respect to all the non-emergency services. This review aims to perform a systematic synthesis of published evidence concerning (1) prioritization tools’ characteristics, (2) their metrological properties, and (3) their effect measures across non-emergency services. Five electronic databases will be searched (Cochrane Library, Ovid/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL). Eligibility criteria guiding data selection will be (1) qualitative, quantitative, or mixed methods empirical studies; (2) patient prioritization in any non-emergency setting; and (3) discussing characteristic, metrological properties, or effect measures. Data will be sought to report tool’s format, description, population, setting, purpose, criteria, developer, metrological properties, and outcome measures. Two reviewers will independently screen, select, and extract data. Data will be synthesized with sequential exploratory design method. We will use the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) to assess the quality of articles included in the review. This systematic review will provide much-needed knowledge regarding patient prioritization tools. The results will benefit clinicians, decision-makers, and researchers by giving them a better understanding of the methods used to prioritize patients in clinical settings. PROSPERO CRD42018107205

Background: Mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) is an increasing public health problem, because of its persistent symptoms and several functional consequences. Understanding the prognosis of a condition is an important component of clinical decision-making and can help to guide the prevention of persistent symptoms following mTBI. The prognosis of mTBI has stimulated several empirical primary research papers and many systematic reviews leading to the identification of a wide range of factors. We aim to synthesize these factors to get a better understanding of their breadth and scope. Methods: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews. We searched in databases systematic reviews synthesizing evidence about the prognosis of persistent symptoms after mTBI in the adult population. Two reviewers independently screened all references and selected eligible reviews based on eligibility criteria. They extracted relevant information using an extraction grid. They also rated independently the risk of bias using the ROBIS tool. We synthesized evidence into a comprehensive conceptual map to facilitate the understanding of prognostic factors that have an impact on persistent post-concussion symptoms. Results: From the 3857 references retrieved in a database search, we included 25 systematic reviews integrating the results of 312 primary articles published between 1957 and 2019. We examined 35 prognostic factors from the systematics reviews. No single prognostic factor demonstrated convincing and conclusive results. However, age, sex, and multiple concussions showed an affirmatory association with persistent post-concussion outcomes in systematic reviews. Conclusion: We highlighted the need for a comprehensive picture of prognostic factors related to persistent post-concussion symptoms. We believe that these prognostic factors would guide clinical decisions and research related to prevention and intervention regarding persistent post-concussion symptoms. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42020176676