Purpose Frailty is an important predictor of adverse health events in older people, and improving quality of life (QOL) is increasingly recognised as a focus for services in this population. This systematic review synthesised evidence of the relationship between frailty and QOL in community-dwelling older people, with an emphasis on how this relationship varied across QOL domains. Methods We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis. We searched five databases for reports of QOL in older people with frailty and included studies based on pre-defined criteria. We conducted meta-analyses comparing “frail” and “not frail” groups for each QOL scale where data were available. We compared pooled results to distribution-based and known-group differences to enhance interpretation. We summarised reported cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses. Results Twenty-two studies (24,419 participants) were included. There were medium or larger standardised mean differences for 24 of 31 QOL scales between frail and not frail groups, with worse QOL for frail groups. These scales encompassed constructs of health-related quality of life as well as psychological and subjective well-being. There were similar findings from mean difference meta-analyses and within-study analyses. Conclusions The association between frailty and lower QOL across a range of constructs is clear and often substantial. Future research should establish whether causal mechanisms link the constructs, which aspects of QOL are most important to older people with frailty, and investigate their tractability. Services focused on measuring and improving QOL for older people with frailty should be introduced.

To report our experience using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). Two reviewers independently applied RoB 2 to results of interest in a large systematic review of complex interventions and reached consensus. We recorded the time taken, and noted and discussed our difficulties using the tool, and the resolutions we adopted. We explored the time taken with regression analysis and summarized our experience of implementing the tool. We assessed risk of bias in 860 results of interest in 113 studies. Staff resource averaged 358 minutes per study (SD 183). Number of results (β = 22) and reports (β = 14) per study and experience of the team (β = -6) significantly affected assessment time. To implement the tool consistently, we developed cut points for missingness and considerations of balance regarding missingness, assumed some concerns with intervention deviations unless otherwise prevented or investigated, some concerns with measurements from unblinded self-reporting participants, and judged low risk of selection for certain dichotomous outcomes despite the absence of an analysis plan. The RoB 2 tool and guidance are useful but resource-intensive and challenging to implement. Critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should detail risk of bias implementation. Improved guidance focusing on implementation could assist reviewers.

Background: the worldwide population is ageing. One expected consequence of this is an increase in morbidity and an associated increased demand for long-term care. Physical rehabilitation is beneficial in older people, but relatively little is known about effects in residents of long-term care facilities. Objective: to examine the effects of physical rehabilitation on activities of daily living (ADL) in elderly residents of long-term care facilities. Methods: systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. We included studies that compared the effect of a physical rehabilitation intervention on independence in ADL with either no intervention or an alternative intervention in older people (over 60 years) living in long-term care facilities. We searched 19 databases including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar. Two researchers independently screened papers and extracted data. Outcomes of included studies were combined in a standardised mean difference random-effects meta-analysis. Results: thirteen of 14 studies identified were included in the meta-analysis. Independence in ADL was improved by 0.24 standard units (95% CI: 0.11–0.38; P = 0.0005). This is equivalent to 1.3 points on the Barthel Index (0–20 scale). No significant differences in effect were found based on participant or intervention characteristics. Larger sample size and low attrition were associated with smaller estimates of effect. All studies were assessed to be at risk of bias. Conclusions: physical rehabilitation may improve independence for elderly long-term care facility residents, but mean effects are small. It is unclear which interventions are most appropriate.