Provision of high quality transitional care is a challenge for health care providers in many western countries. This systematic review was conducted to (1) identify and synthesise research, using randomised control trial designs, on the quality of transitional care interventions compared with standard hospital discharge for older people with chronic illnesses, and (2) make recommendations for research and practice. Eight databases were searched; CINAHL, Psychinfo, Medline, Proquest, Academic Search Complete, Masterfile Premier, SocIndex, Humanities and Social Sciences Collection, in addition to the Cochrane Collaboration, Joanna Briggs Institute and Google Scholar. Results were screened to identify peer reviewed journal articles reporting analysis of quality indicator outcomes in relation to a transitional care intervention involving discharge care in hospital and follow-up support in the home. Studies were limited to those published between January 1990 and May 2013. Study participants included people 60 years of age or older living in their own homes who were undergoing care transitions from hospital to home. Data relating to study characteristics and research findings were extracted from the included articles. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for risk of bias. Twelve articles met the inclusion criteria. Transitional care interventions reported in most studies reduced re-hospitalizations, with the exception of general practitioner and primary care nurse models. All 12 studies included outcome measures of re-hospitalization and length of stay indicating a quality focus on effectiveness, efficiency, and safety/risk. Patient satisfaction was assessed in six of the 12 studies and was mostly found to be high. Other outcomes reflecting person and family centred care were limited including those pertaining to the patient and carer experience, carer burden and support, and emotional support for older people and their carers. Limited outcome measures were reported reflecting timeliness, equity, efficiencies for community providers, and symptom management. Gaps in the evidence base were apparent in the quality domains of timeliness, equity, efficiencies for community providers, effectiveness/symptom management, and domains of person and family centred care. Further research that involves the person and their family/caregiver in transitional care interventions is needed.

Objective: nformal caregivers provide substantial support for people living with cancer. Previous systematic reviews report on the efficacy of cancer caregiver interventions but not their potential to be implemented. The aim of this systematic review was to explore the potential for cancer caregiver interventions to be implemented into practice.Methods: We searched three electronic databases to identify cancer caregiver interventions on 5 January 2018. We operationalised six implementation outcomes (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, and costs) into a tool to guide data extraction.Results: The search yielded 33 papers (27 papers from electronic databases and six papers from other sources) reporting on 26 studies that met review criteria. Fewer than half the studies (46%) contained evidence about the acceptability of interventions from caregivers' perspectives; only two studies (8%) included interventions developed with input from caregivers. Two studies (8%) addressed potential adoption of interventions, and no studies discussed intentions, agreement, or action to implement interventions into practice. All studies reported on intervention appropriateness by providing a rationale for the interventions. For feasibility, on average less than one‐third of caregivers who were eligible to be involved consented to participate. On fidelity, whether interventions were conducted as intended was reported in 62% of studies. Cost data were reported in terms of intervention delivery, requiring a median time commitment of staff of 180 minutes to be delivered.Conclusions: Caregiver intervention studies lack components of study design and reporting that could bridge the gap between research and practice. There is enormous potential for improvements in cancer caregiver intervention study design to plan for future implementation.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of a clinician referral and exercise program in improving exercise levels and quality of life for men with prostate cancer.METHODS: This was a multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial in Melbourne, Australia comprising 15 clinicians: 8 clinicians were randomized to refer eligible participants (n = 54) to a 12‐week exercise program comprising 2 supervised gym sessions and 1 home‐based session per week, and 7 clinicians were randomized to follow usual care (n = 93). The primary outcome was self‐reported physical activity; the secondary outcomes were quality of life, anxiety, and symptoms of depression.RESULTS: A significant intervention effect was observed for vigorous‐intensity exercise (effect size: Cohen's d, 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.09‐0.82; P = .010) but not for combined moderate and vigorous exercise levels (effect size: d, 0.08; 95% CI, −0.28 to 0.45; P = .48). Significant intervention effects were also observed for meeting exercise guidelines (≥150 min/wk; odds ratio, 3.9; 95% CI, 1.9‐7.8; P = .002); positive intervention effects were observed in the intervention group for cognitive functioning (effect size: d, 0.34; 95% CI, −0.02 to 0.70; P = .06) and depression symptoms (effect size: d, −0.35; 95% CI, −0.71 to 0.02; P = .06). Eighty percent of participants reported that the clinician's referral influenced their decision to participate in the exercise program.CONCLUSIONS: The clinician referral and 12‐week exercise program significantly improved vigorous exercise levels and had a positive impact on mental health outcomes for men living with prostate cancer. Further research is needed to determine the sustainability of the exercise program and its generalizability to other cancer populations. Cancer 2015;121:2646–2654. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

Background: Web-based mindfulness programs may be beneficial in improving the well-being outcomes of those living with chronic illnesses. Adherence to programs is a key indicator in improving outcomes; however, with the digitization of programs, it is necessary to enhance engagement and encourage people to return to digital health platforms. More information is needed on how engagement strategies have been used in web-based mindfulness programs to encourage adherence. Objective: The aim of this study is to develop a list of engagement strategies for web-based mindfulness programs and evaluate the impact of engagement strategies on adherence. Methods: A narrative systematic review was conducted across the MEDLINE Complete, CINAHL Complete, APA PsycINFO, and Embase databases and followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. Articles were screened using the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome framework. Adults aged >18 years with chronic health conditions were included in the study. Mindfulness interventions, including those in combination with mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, delivered on the web through the internet or smartphone technology were included. Interventions lasted at least 2 weeks. Studies with a randomized controlled trial design or a pilot randomized controlled trial design were included. Engagement strategies, including web-based program features and facilitator-led strategies, adherence, and retention, were included. Results: A total of 1265 articles were screened, of which 19 were relevant and were included in the review. On average, 70.98% (2258/3181) of the study participants were women with a mean age of 46 (SD 13) years. Most commonly, mindfulness programs were delivered to people living with mental health conditions (8/19, 42%). Of the 19 studies, 8 (42%) used only program features to encourage adherence, 5 (26%) used facilitator-led strategies, and 6 (32%) used a combination of the two. Encouraging program adherence was the most common engagement strategy used, which was used in 77% (10/13) of the facilitator-led studies and 57% (8/14) of the program feature studies. Nearly two-thirds (63%) of the studies provided a definition of adherence, which varied between 50% and 100% completion across studies. The overall mean participant compliance to the mindfulness programs was 56% (SD 15%). Most studies (10/19, 53%) had a long-term follow-up, with the most common follow-up period being 12 weeks after intervention (3/10, 30%). After the intervention, the mean retention was 78% (SD 15%). Conclusions: Engagement strategies in web-based mindfulness programs comprise reminders to use the program. Other features may be suitable for encouraging adherence to interventions, and a facilitator-led component may result in higher retention. There is variance in the way adherence is measured, and intervention lengths and follow-up periods are inconsistent. More thorough reporting and a standardized framework for measuring adherence are needed to more accurately assess adherence and engagement strategies.