Introduction: In India, the proportion of older population is projected to increase from 8% in 2015 to 19% in 2050 and a third of the country's population will be older adults by end of the century. Multimorbidity is common among the elderly and the prevalence increases with age. Chronic conditions are most often present as clusters and it's critical to explore the prevalent pattern of clustering for better public health strategies. Method: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 725 rural older adults (>60 years) in Tigiria block of Odisha, India. Multimorbidity status was assessed using the prior validated MAQ-PC tool. Survey was conducted using android tablets installed with open data kit software. While Euclidean distances using K-means clustering algorithm were used to estimate the similarity or dissimilarity of observations. The optimum numbers of clusters were determined using silhouette method. Data were analyzed using multiple open source packages of R statistical programming software ver-3.6.3. Result: The overall prevalence of multimorbidity was 48.8% of which dyads (25%) were the most common form, followed by triads (15.2%). The prevalence of multimorbidity was higher in females (50.4%) than males (47.4%). The optimal number of clusters was found to be 3. While arthritis alone was a separate cluster, hypertension and acid peptic disease were in another cluster and all the rest conditions were included in the third cluster. Conclusion: The cluster analysis to measure of proximity suggested arthritis, hypertension, and acid peptic disease are the diseases that occur mostly in isolation with the other chronic conditions in the rural elderly.

Antenatal care (ANC) is essential in maternal and child health since it provides care to pregnant women from conception through to labour in order to ensure a safe pregnancy and childbirth. In recent years, mobile health (mHealth) interventions have emerged as a promising solution to improve maternal and child health outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The present study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials to evaluate the effectiveness of mHealth interventions to monitor prenatal care among pregnant women in LMICs. A systematic literature review was conducted using the databases CINHAL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO on the effectiveness of mHealth interventions in monitoring the antenatal care of pregnant women. The study selection, data extraction of the included articles, and quality appraisal were assessed. Our study included six studies considering 7886 participants. All articles were from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Antenatal mothers who used a mobile health intervention were more likely (RR = 1.66, 95%CI = 1.07–2.58, I² = 98%) to attend ANC check-ups when compared with the women who did not use any mobile health applications or did not receive any short message services. mHealth technologies are being utilised more and more to increase care accessibility and improve maternal and fetal health. Policymakers should prioritise the integration of mHealth interventions into maternal healthcare services in LMICs, ensuring that they are cost-effective, accessible, and sustainable and that healthcare workers are trained to deliver these interventions effectively.

The study aims to estimate and compare the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) seroprevalence, the fraction of asymptomatic or subclinical infections in the population, determine the demographic risk factors and analyse the antibody development at different time points among adults in Bhubaneswar city, India. This was a serial three-round cross-sectional, community-based study where participants were selected from the residents of Bhubaneswar city using multi-stage random sampling. Blood samples were collected during household visits along with demographic and clinical data from every participant. Total anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibody present in serum was assessed using the electro-chemiluminescence immunoassay platform. Temporal comparisons of the community seroprevalence were performed against the detected number of cumulative cases, active cases, recoveries and deaths. A total of 3693 participants were enrolled in this study with a cumulative non-response rate of 18.33% in all the three rounds. The gender-weighted seroprevalence for the city in the first round was 1.55% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84–2.58), second round was 5.27% (95% CI 4.13–6.59) and in the third round was 49.04% (95% CI 46.39–51.68). In the first round, the seroprevalence was found to be highest in the elderly population, whereas the seroprevalence for the second and third phases was highest in the age group of 30–39 years. Seroprevalence showed an increasing trend over the three time periods, with the highest seropositivity rates among individuals sampled between 16 and 18 September 2020. By the third round, 93.93% of those who had previously been tested positive by real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction had seroconversion and 46.57% of those who had been tested negative also showed seroconversion. Infection to case ratio during first round was 27.05, for second round and third round it was 5.62 and 17.91, respectively.

Aim: Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) is a commonly used intervention for addressing the health needs of older people. Traditionally used for hospital inpatients, there is inconclusive evidence on its effectiveness in other settings. This overview of reviews aims to synthesize the current evidence regarding CGA models, their effectiveness, feasibility and acceptability in nonhospital settings.Methodology: The overview included systematic reviews with or without meta‐analysis reporting on older adults (≥50 years) undergoing CGA in primary care facilities, outpatient care, community‐based programs, long‐term care settings and home‐based care, excluding narrow high‐risk groups or specific disease conditions. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, PsychInfo and CINAHL, were searched up to August 2023, with blinded double screening and data extraction. Review quality was assessed using Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews‐2.Results: Of 2574 identified articles, 22 systematic reviews (478 primary studies, >136 336 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Most reviews were of moderate to good quality, 73% were based in community or home settings, and in 50% of the reviews the participants were aged ≥65 years. They identified diverse CGA models without uniform definition or domains of assessment, most delivered by nurses and multidisciplinary teams, with variation of input duration (6–36 months) and poor reporting of frequency of assessment or follow‐up duration. Most reviews found no effect of CGA on rates of admission to hospitals or long‐term care facilities, quality of life or function. Of the 10 reviews that reported it as an outcome, only two found that CGA reduced mortality risk by 13% and 14% at longest follow‐up. Of the three reviews reporting frailty as an outcome, two showed benefit, with one meta‐analysis showing significant reduction in frailty (relative risk, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.64–0.93]). The acceptability of CGA is good among care providers, but limited information was found among patients. Facilitators for implementation identified include preexisting interprofessional working, skilled staff, better informed patients and focus on patient convenience. The evidence was exclusively from high‐income countries.Conclusion: CGA models are highly heterogenous across domains, delivery, dosage and frequency. Most systematic reviews show little to no evidence of benefit of CGA on rates of hospitalization/long‐term care admissions, functional ability and quality of life. However, CGA may have a positive effect on frailty and mortality, particularly in relatively vulnerable older people. Strategies to first identify high‐risk individuals, followed by CGA, could lead to better outcomes. The lack of evidence on the effectiveness of CGA in low‐ and middle‐income countries, despite the rapid increase in the number and proportion of older adults, means that trials in this area are urgently needed.Registration: Registered prospectively in the Open Science Framework Registry of reviews (No. ZB69F). Protocol can be accessed at: DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZB69F. No amendments to the protocol were made. Geriatr Gerontol Int 2025; 25: 491–503.