In recent years there has been much emphasis on 'research waste' caused by poor question selection, insufficient attention to previous research results, and avoidable weakness in research design, conduct and analysis. Little attention has been paid to the effect of inadequate development of interventions before proceeding to a full clinical trial. We therefore propose to enrich the development phase of the MRC Framework by adding crucial elements to improve the likelihood of success and enhance the fit with clinical practice METHODS: Based on existing intervention development guidance and synthesis, a comprehensive iterative intervention development approach is proposed. Examples from published reports are presented to illustrate the methodology that can be applied within each element to enhance the intervention design. A comprehensive iterative approach is presented by combining the elements of the MRC Framework development phase with essential elements from existing guidance including: problem identification, the systematic identification of evidence, identification or development of theory, determination of needs, the examination of current practice and context, modelling the process and expected outcomes leading to final element: the intervention design. All elements are drawn from existing models to provide intervention developers with a greater chance of producing an intervention that is well adopted, effective and fitted to the context. This comprehensive approach of developing interventions will strengthen the internal and external validity, minimize research waste and add value to health care research. In complex interventions in health care research, flaws in the development process immediately impact the chances of success. Knowledge regarding the causal mechanisms and interactions within the intended clinical context is needed to develop interventions that fit daily practice and are beneficial for the end-user.

To examine the risk of disability in 15 individual ADL, IADL, and mobility in older adults by age; and to assess the association of multimorbidity, gender, and education with disability.

To better accommodate for the complex care needs of frail, older people, general practitioners must be capable of easily identifying frailty in daily clinical practice, for example, by using the frailty index (FI). To explore whether the FI is a valid and adequate screening instrument for primary care, we conducted a systematic review of its psychometric properties.

Early identification of frailty is important for proactive primary care. Currently, however, there is no consensus on which measure to use. Therefore, we examined whether a Frailty Index (FI), based on ICPC-coded primary care data, and the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) questionnaire identify the same older people as frail.

Background: Regular inspection of the oral cavity is required for prevention, early diagnosis and risk reduction of oral- and general health-related problems. Assessments to inspect the oral cavity have been designed for non-dental healthcare professionals, like nurses. The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the content and the measurement properties of oral health assessments for use by non-dental healthcare professionals in assessing older peoples’ oral health, in order to provide recommendations for practice, policy, and research. Methods: A systematic search in PubMed, EMBASE.com, and Cinahl (via Ebsco) has been performed. Search terms referring to ‘oral health assessments^’, ‘non-dental healthcare professionals’ and ‘older people (60+)’ were used. Two reviewers individually performed title/abstract, and full-text screening for eligibility. The included studies have investigated at least one measurement property (validity/reliability) and were evaluated on their methodological quality using “The Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments” (COSMIN) checklist. The measurement properties were then scored using quality criteria (positive/negative/indeterminate). Results: Out of 879 hits, 18 studies were included in this review. Five studies showed good methodological quality on at least one measurement property and 14 studies showed poor methodological quality on some of their measurement properties. None of the studies assessed all measurement properties of the COSMIN. In total eight oral health assessments were found: the Revised Oral Assessment Guide (ROAG); the Minimum Data Set (MDS), with oral health component; the Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT); The Holistic Reliable Oral Assessment Tool (THROAT); Dental Hygiene Registration (DHR); Mucosal Plaque Score (MPS); The Brief Oral Health Screening Examination (BOHSE) and the Oral Assessment Sheet (OAS). Most frequently assessed items were: lips, mucosa membrane, tongue, gums, teeth, denture, saliva, and oral hygiene. Conclusion: Taken into account the scarce evidence of the proposed assessments, the OHAT and ROAG are most complete in their included oral health items and are of best methodological quality in combination with positive quality criteria on their measurement properties. Non-dental healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers should be aware of the methodological limitations of the available oral health assessments and realize that the quality of the measurement properties remains uncertain.