Background and Objectives: Person-centered care is the gold standard of care for people living with dementia, yet few systematic reviews have detailed how it is delivered in practice. This mixed-methods review aimed to examine the delivery of person-centered care, and its effectiveness, for people living with dementia in residential aged care. Research Design and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eligible studies were identified across 4 databases. Quantitative and qualitative studies containing data on person-centered care delivered to people with dementia living in residential aged care were included. Meta-analysis using a random-effects model was conducted where more than 3 studies measured the same outcome. A narrative meta-synthesis approach was undertaken to categorize verbatim participant quotes into representative themes. Risk of bias was undertaken using quality appraisal tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Results: 41 studies were identified for inclusion. There were 34 person-centered care initiatives delivered, targeting 14 person-centered care outcomes. 3 outcomes could be pooled. Meta-analyses demonstrated no reduction in agitation (standardized mean difference −0.27, 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.58, 0.03), improvement in quality of life (standardized mean difference −0.63, 95% CI: −1.95, 0.70), or reduced neuropsychiatric symptoms (mean difference −1.06, 95% CI: −2.16, 0.05). Narrative meta-synthesis revealed barriers (e.g., time constraints) and enablers (e.g., staff collaboration) to providing person-centered care from a staff perspective. Discussion and Implications: The effectiveness of person-centered care initiatives delivered to people with dementia in residential aged care is conflicting. Further high-quality research over an extended time is required to identify how person-centered care can be best implemented to improve resident outcomes.

Globally, road transport accidents contribute significantly to mortality and burden of disability. Up to 50 million people suffer a transport-related non-fatal injury each year, which often leads to long-term disability. A substantial number of people with minor injuries struggle to recover and little is known about the factors leading to poor or non-recovery. The aim of this paper is to present a systematic review of biopsychosocial factors related to poor or non-recovery after a minor transport-related injury. Studies were selected through searches of PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Cochrane library. Methodological quality was assessed using a Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) critical appraisal checklist for quantitative cohort studies and Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) checklist for qualitative articles. Data were extracted using the Cochrane data extraction tool based on the biopsychosocial model of health (BPS). In total, there were 37 articles included. However, heterogeneity of the techniques and tools used to assess factors and outcomes across studies meant that pooling of results to determine biopsychosocial factors most predictive of poor or non-recovery was not possible. Hence, a narrative synthesis was conducted and shown multiple factors to be associated with poorer outcomes or non-recovery, most being identified in the biological and psychological domain of the BPS model. Factors that were the most representative across studies and have shown to have the strongest associations with poor or non-recovery were high initial pain intensity, pain duration and severity, pre-accident physical and mental health status and pain catastrophising. This review demonstrates the complexity of recovery and a challenge in reporting on predictors of recovery. It is evident that a range of multi-factorial biopsychosocial factors impact recovery. These factors are often inter-connected and multi-faceted and therefore, it was not feasible to select or focus on one single factor. In defining the most predictive factors, further research is required, yet the consensus around which tools to use to measure recovery outcomes is needed and is highly recommended. Regardless of the descriptive nature, the review demonstrated that high levels of post-injury pain are associated with poorer outcomes such as chronic pain and physical and mental disability. Therefore, early targeting of modifiable factors such as pain, pain catastrophizing and arising comorbidities such as PTSD, depression and anxiety may assist in reducing chronic pain and ongoing related disabilities. Systematic review protocol was registered in International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 14 December 2016. Registration number CRD42016052276.

Falls are a leading reason for older people presenting to the emergency department (ED), and many experience further falls. Little evidence exists to guide secondary prevention in this population. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) investigated whether a 6-month telephone-based patient-centred program—RESPOND—had an effect on falls and fall injuries in older people presenting to the ED after a fall. Community-dwelling people aged 60–90 years presenting to the ED with a fall and planned for discharge home within 72 hours were recruited from two EDs in Australia. Participants were enrolled if they could walk without hands-on assistance, use a telephone, and were free of cognitive impairment (Mini-Mental State Examination > 23). Recruitment occurred between 1 April 2014 and 29 June 2015. Participants were randomised to receive either RESPOND (intervention) or usual care (control). RESPOND comprised (1) home-based risk assessment; (2) 6 months telephone-based education, coaching, goal setting, and support for evidence-based risk factor management; and (3) linkages to existing services. Primary outcomes were falls and fall injuries in the 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included ED presentations, hospital admissions, fractures, death, falls risk, falls efficacy, and quality of life. Assessors blind to group allocation collected outcome data via postal calendars, telephone follow-up, and hospital records. There were 430 people in the primary outcome analysis—217 randomised to RESPOND and 213 to control. The mean age of participants was 73 years; 55% were female. Falls per person-year were 1.15 in the RESPOND group and 1.83 in the control (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.65 [95% CI 0.43–0.99]; P = 0.042). There was no significant difference in fall injuries (IRR 0.81 [0.51–1.29]; P = 0.374). The rate of fractures was significantly lower in the RESPOND group compared with the control (0.05 versus 0.12; IRR 0.37 [95% CI 0.15–0.91]; P = 0.03), but there were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes between groups: ED presentations, hospitalisations or falls risk, falls efficacy, and quality of life. There were two deaths in the RESPOND group and one in the control group. No adverse events or unintended harm were reported. Limitations of this study were the high number of dropouts (n = 93); possible underreporting of falls, fall injuries, and hospitalisations across both groups; and the relatively small number of fracture events. In this study, providing a telephone-based, patient-centred falls prevention program reduced falls but not fall injuries, in older people presenting to the ED with a fall. Among secondary outcomes, only fractures reduced. Adopting patient-centred strategies into routine clinical practice for falls prevention could offer an opportunity to improve outcomes and reduce falls in patients attending the ED. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000336684).

Evidence for effective falls prevention interventions in acute wards is limited. One reason for this may be suboptimal program implementation. This study aimed to identify perceived barriers and enablers of the implementation of the 6-PACK falls prevention program to inform the implementation in a randomised controlled trial. Strategies to optimise successful implementation of 6-PACK were also sought. A mixed-methods approach was applied in 24 acute wards from 6 Australian hospitals. Participants were nurses working on participating wards and senior hospital staff including Nurse Unit Managers; senior physicians; Directors of Nursing; and senior personnel involved in quality and safety or falls prevention. Information on barriers and enablers of 6-PACK implementation was obtained through surveys, focus groups and interviews. Questions reflected the COM-B framework that includes three behaviour change constructs of: capability, opportunity and motivation. Focus group and interview data were analysed thematically, and survey data descriptively. The survey response rate was 60% (420/702), and 12 focus groups (n = 96 nurses) and 24 interviews with senior staff were conducted. Capability barriers included beliefs that falls could not be prevented; and limited knowledge on falls prevention in patients with complex care needs (e.g. cognitive impairment). Capability enablers included education and training, particularly face to face case study based approaches. Lack of resources was identified as an opportunity barrier. Leadership, champions and using data to drive practice change were recognised as opportunity enablers. Motivation barriers included complacency and lack of ownership in falls prevention efforts. Motivation enablers included senior staff articulating clear goals and a commitment to falls prevention; and use of reminders, audits and feedback. The information gained from this study suggests that regular practical face-to-face education and training for nurses; provision of equipment; audit, reminders and feedback; leadership and champions; and the provision of falls data is key to successful falls prevention program implementation in acute hospitals.

Background: Emerging evidence suggests that people with arthritis are reporting increased physical pain and psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, Twitter’s daily usage has surged by 23% throughout the pandemic period, presenting a unique opportunity to assess the content and sentiment of tweets. Individuals with arthritis use Twitter to communicate with peers, and to receive up-to-date information from health professionals and services about novel therapies and management techniques. Objective: The aim of this research was to identify proxy topics of importance for individuals with arthritis during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to explore the emotional context of tweets by people with arthritis during the early phase of the pandemic. Methods: From March 20 to April 20, 2020, publicly available tweets posted in English and with hashtag combinations related to arthritis and COVID-19 were extracted retrospectively from Twitter. Content analysis was used to identify common themes within tweets, and sentiment analysis was used to examine positive and negative emotions in themes to understand the COVID-19 experiences of people with arthritis. Results: In total, 149 tweets were analyzed. The majority of tweeters were female and were from the United States. Tweeters reported a range of arthritis conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and psoriatic arthritis. Seven themes were identified: health care experiences, personal stories, links to relevant blogs, discussion of arthritis-related symptoms, advice sharing, messages of positivity, and stay-at-home messaging. Sentiment analysis demonstrated marked anxiety around medication shortages, increased physical symptom burden, and strong desire for trustworthy information and emotional connection. Conclusions: Tweets by people with arthritis highlight the multitude of concurrent concerns during the COVID-19 pandemic. Understanding these concerns, which include heightened physical and psychological symptoms in the context of treatment misinformation, may assist clinicians to provide person-centered care during this time of great health uncertainty.