Background: South Asian individuals experience a higher burden of chronic diseases and limited access to health care services compared with their Caucasian peers. Digital health interventions can enhance the delivery of health care, minimize health inequities, and consequently improve health status among minority ethnic groups. However, it is unclear how South Asian people view and perceive the use of digital health technologies to support their health needs. Objective: The aim of the review is to identify South Asian individuals’ experiences and attitudes of digital health and explore the barriers and facilitators affecting their use of digital health services. Methods: The Arksey and O’Malley methodological framework was used to guide this scoping review. Five electronic databases were examined for pertinent papers, which were augmented by searching bibliographies of the retrieved papers and gray literature. A total of 1328 potentially relevant papers were retrieved from the initial search, and the supplemental search added 7 papers to the final list of potentially included papers. Each paper on the initial inclusion list was independently reviewed, leaving 15 papers to be included in the review. Results: Data were analyzed thematically leading to the development of two overarching themes: (1) barriers to uptake of digital health and (2) facilitators of use of digital health services. There was a general consensus that South Asian communities still struggle with inadequate access to digital health technologies. Some studies suggest multiple initiatives to improve accessibility and acceptability of digital health services within South Asian communities in order to mitigate health disparities and develop a more inclusive health care system. These include the development of multiple-language and culturally sensitive interventions and digital skill development sessions. Most studies were conducted in South Asian countries, focusing on measurable outcomes of digital health interventions. Few explored the experiences and views of South Asian community members residing in the West as a minority ethnic group, for example, British South Asians. Conclusions: Literature mapping proposes that South Asian people frequently struggle with a health care system that may limit their access to digital health services, and sometimes fails to consider social and cultural needs. There is growing evidence that digital health interventions have the potential to facilitate supported self-management, which is part of the plans to adopt person-centered care. These interventions are particularly important for overcoming some of the challenges, for example, time constraints, safety, and gender sensitivity, associated with the delivery of health care interventions in minority ethnic groups such as South Asians in the United Kingdom, and thus to improve minority ethnic groups’ access to health care services to support individual health needs, and consequently enhance health status.

This study evaluated the differences in clinical outcomes of COVID-19 infection between ethnic minorities and the White ethnic group in the UK. Systematic review and meta-analysis. This study included adult residents in the UK with confirmed COVID-19 infection. The outcomes evaluated in this study were mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Outcome data were compared between individuals from ethnic minority groups and individuals from a White ethnic background. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, medRxiv and PROSPERO were searched for articles published between May 2020 and April 2021. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale checklist. PROSPERO ID: CRD42021248117. Fourteen studies (767,177 participants) were included in the current review. In the adjusted analysis, the pooled odds ratio (OR) for mortality following COVID-19 infection was higher for Black (OR 1.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21–2.76, number of studies [k] = 6), Asian (OR 1.16, 95% CI: 0.85–1.57, k = 6) and Mixed and Other (MO) ethnic groups (OR 1.12, 95% CI: 1.04–1.20, k = 5) compared with the White ethnic group. The adjusted and unadjusted ORs of ICU admission for many of the ethnic minority groups were more than double the OR values for the White ethnic group (Black ethnic group = OR 2.32, 95% CI: 1.73–3.11, k = 5; Asian ethnic group = OR 2.34, 95% CI: 1.89–2.90, k = 5; and MO ethnic group = OR 2.26, 95% CI: 1.64–3.11, k = 4). In the adjusted analysis for IMV, the ORs were similarly significantly raised in ethnic minority groups compared with the White ethnic group (Black ethic group = OR 2.03, 95% CI: 1.80–2.29, k = 3; Asian ethnic group = OR 1.84, 95% CI: 1.20–2.80, k = 3; and MO ethnic group = OR 2.09, 95% CI: 1.35–3.22, k = 3). This review found that in the UK, Black, Asian and MO ethnic groups experienced increased COVID-19–related disease severity and mortality compared with the White ethnic group majority.

Objective: Systematically review and critically appraise the evidence for the association between delirium and falls in community-dwelling adults aged ≥60 years. Methods: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL and Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews databases in April 2023. Standard methods were used to screen, extract data, assess risk of bias (using Newcastle–Ottawa scale), provide a narrative synthesis and, where appropriate, conduct meta-analysis. Results: We included 8 studies, with at least 3505 unique participants. Five found limited evidence for an association between delirium and subsequent falls: one adjusted study showed an increase in falls (risk ratio 6.66; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.16–20.53), but the evidence was low certainty. Four non-adjusted studies found no clear effect. Three studies (one with two subgroups treated separately) found some evidence for an association between falls and subsequent delirium: meta-analysis of three adjusted studies showed an increase in delirium (pooled odds ratio 2.01; 95% CI 1.52–2.66); one subgroup of non-adjusted data found no clear effect. Number of falls and fallers were reported in the studies. Four studies and one subgroup were at high risk of bias and one study had some concerns. Conclusions: We found limited evidence for the association between delirium and falls. More methodologically rigorous research is needed to understand the complex relationship and establish how and why this operates bidirectionally. Studies must consider confounding factors such as dementia, frailty and comorbidity in their design, to identify potential modifying factors involved. Clinicians should be aware of the potential relationship between these common presentations.

Background: Over half of people with dementia live at home. We know little about what home support could be clinically effective or cost-effective in enabling them to live well. Objectives: We aimed to (1) review evidence for components of home support, identify their presence in the literature and in services in England, and develop an appropriate economic model; (2) develop and test a practical memory support package in early-stage dementia, test the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routine home support in later-stage dementia and design a toolkit based on this evidence; and (3) elicit the preferences of staff, carers and people with dementia for home support inputs and packages, and evaluate the cost-effectiveness of these approaches in early- and later-stage dementia. Design: We undertook (1) an evidence synthesis, national surveys on the NHS and social care and an economic review; (2) a multicentre pragmatic randomised trial [Dementia Early Stage Cognitive Aids New Trial (DESCANT)] to estimate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of providing memory aids and guidance to people with early-stage dementia (the DESCANT intervention), alongside process evaluation and qualitative analysis, an observational study of existing care packages in later-stage dementia along with qualitative analysis, and toolkit development to summarise this evidence; and (3) consultation with experts, staff and carers to explore the balance between informal and paid home support using case vignettes, discrete choice experiments to explore the preferences of people with dementia and carers between home support packages in early- and later-stage dementia, and cost–utility analysis building on trial and observational study. Setting: The national surveys described Community Mental Health Teams, memory clinics and social care services across England. Recruitment to the trial was through memory services in nine NHS trusts in England and one health board in Wales. Recruitment to the observational study was through social services in 17 local authorities in England. Recruitment for the vignette and preference studies was through memory services, community centres and carers’ organisations. Participants: People aged > 50 years with dementia within 1 year of first attendance at a memory clinic were eligible for the trial. People aged > 60 years with later-stage dementia within 3 months of a review of care needs were eligible for the observational study. We recruited staff, carers and people with dementia for the vignette and preference studies. All participants had to give written informed consent. Main outcome measures: The trial and observational study used the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale as the primary outcome and also measured quality of life, capability, cognition, general psychological health and carers’ sense of competence. Methods: Owing to the heterogeneity of interventions, methods and outcome measures, our evidence and economic reviews both used narrative synthesis. The main source of economic studies was the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. We analysed the trial and observational study by linear mixed models. We analysed the trial by ‘treatment allocated’ and used propensity scores to minimise confounding in the observational study. Results: Our reviews and surveys identified several home support approaches of potential benefit. In early-stage dementia, the DESCANT trial had 468 randomised participants (234 intervention participants and 234 control participants), with 347 participants analysed. We found no significant effect at the primary end point of 6 months of the DESCANT intervention on any of several participant outcome measures. The primary outcome was the Bristol Activities of Daily Living Scale, for which scores range from 0 to 60, with higher scores showing greater dependence. After adjustment for differences at baseline, the mean difference was 0.38, slightly but not significantly favouring the comparator group receiving treatment as usual. The 95% confidence interval ran from –0.89 to 1.65 (p = 0.56). There was no evidence that more intensive care packages in later-stage dementia were more effective than basic care. However, formal home care appeared to help keep people at home. Staff recommended informal care that cost 88% of formal care, but for informal carers this ratio was only 62%. People with dementia preferred social and recreational activities, and carers preferred respite care and regular home care. The DESCANT intervention is probably not cost-effective in early-stage dementia, and intensive care packages are probably not cost-effective in later-stage dementia. From the perspective of the third sector, intermediate intensity packages were cheaper but less effective. Certain elements may be driving these results, notably reduced use of carers’ groups. Limitations: Our chosen outcome measures may not reflect subtle outcomes valued by people with dementia. Conclusions: Several approaches preferred by people with dementia and their carers have potential. However, memory aids aiming to affect daily living activities in early-stage dementia or intensive packages compared with basic care in later-stage dementia were not clinically effective or cost-effective. Future work: Further work needs to identify what people with dementia and their carers prefer and develop more sensitive outcome measures. Study registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN12591717. The evidence synthesis is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014008890. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 6. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.