Objective: To summarize the best available evidence regarding the effectiveness of interventions for preventing frailty progression in older adults. Introduction: Frailty is an age-related state of decreased physiological reserves characterized by an increased risk of poor clinical outcomes. Evidence supporting the malleability of frailty, its prevention and treatment, has been presented. Inclusion criteria: The review considered studies on older adults aged 65 and over, explicitly identified as pre-frail or frail, who had been undergoing interventions focusing on the prevention of frailty progression. Participants selected on the basis of specific illness or with a terminal diagnosis were excluded. The comparator was usual care, alternative therapeutic interventions or no intervention. The primary outcome was frailty. Secondary outcomes included: (i) cognition, quality of life, activities of daily living, caregiver burden, functional capacity, depression and other mental health-related outcomes, self-perceived health and social engagement; (ii) drugs and prescriptions, analytical parameters, adverse outcomes and comorbidities; (iii) costs, and/or costs relative to benefits and/or savings associated with implementing the interventions for frailty. Experimental study designs, cost effectiveness, cost benefit, cost minimization and cost utility studies were considered for inclusion. Methods: Databases for published and unpublished studies, available in English, Portuguese, Spanish, Italian and Dutch, from January 2001 to November 2015, were searched. Critical appraisal was conducted using standardized instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Data was extracted using the standardized tools designed for quantitative and economic studies. Data was presented in a narrative form due to the heterogeneity of included studies. Results: Twenty-one studies, all randomized controlled trials, with a total of 5275 older adults and describing 33 interventions, met the criteria for inclusion. Economic analyses were conducted in two studies. Physical exercise programs were shown to be generally effective for reducing or postponing frailty but only when conducted in groups. Favorable effects on frailty indicators were also observed after the interventions, based on physical exercise with supplementation, supplementation alone, cognitive training and combined treatment. Group meetings and home visits were not found to be universally effective. Lack of efficacy was evidenced for physical exercise performed individually or delivered one-to-one, hormone supplementation and problem solving therapy. Individually tailored management programs for clinical conditions had inconsistent effects on frailty prevalence. Economic studies demonstrated that this type of intervention, as compared to usual care, provided better value for money, particularly for very frail community-dwelling participants, and had favorable effects in some of the frailty-related outcomes in inpatient and outpatient management, without increasing costs. Conclusions: This review found mixed results regarding the effectiveness of frailty interventions. However, there is clear evidence on the usefulness of such interventions in carefully chosen evidence-based circumstances, both for frailty itself and for secondary outcomes, supporting clinical investment of resources in frailty intervention. Further research is required to reinforce current evidence and examine the impact of the initial level of frailty on the benefits of different interventions. There is also a need for economic evaluation of frailty interventions.

There are an increasing number of published single-method systematic reviews that focus on different types of evidence related to a particular topic. As policy makers and practitioners seek clear directions for decision-making from systematic reviews, it is likely that it will be increasingly difficult for them to identify 'what to do' if they are required to find and understand a plethora of syntheses related to a particular topic.Mixed-methods systematic reviews are designed to address this issue and have the potential to produce systematic reviews of direct relevance to policy makers and practitioners.On the basis of the recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute International Mixed Methods Reviews Methodology Group in 2012, the Institute adopted a segregated approach to mixed-methods synthesis as described by Sandelowski et al., which consists of separate syntheses of each component method of the review. Joanna Briggs Institute's mixed-methods synthesis of the findings of the separate syntheses uses a Bayesian approach to translate the findings of the initial quantitative synthesis into qualitative themes and pooling these with the findings of the initial qualitative synthesis.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Background: A scoping search identified systematic reviews on diagnostic accuracy and predictive ability of frailty measures in older adults. In most cases, research was confined to specific assessment measures related to a specific clinical model. Objectives: To summarize the best available evidence from systematic reviews in relation to reliability, validity, diagnostic accuracy and predictive ability of frailty measures in older adults. Inclusion criteria Population: Older adults aged 60 years or older recruited from community, primary care, long-term residential care and hospitals. Index test: Available frailty measures in older adults. Reference test: Cardiovascular Health Study phenotype model, the Canadian Study of Health and Aging cumulative deficit model, Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment or other reference tests. Diagnosis of interest: Frailty defined as an age-related state of decreased physiological reserves characterized by an increased risk of poor clinical outcomes. Types of studies: Quantitative systematic reviews. Search strategy: A three-step search strategy was utilized to find systematic reviews, available in English, published between January 2001 and October 2015. Methodological quality: Assessed by two independent reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist for systematic reviews and research synthesis. Data extraction: Two independent reviewers extracted data using the standardized data extraction tool designed for umbrella reviews. Data synthesis: Data were only presented in a narrative form due to the heterogeneity of included reviews. Results: Five reviews with a total of 227,381 participants were included in this umbrella review. Two reviews focused on reliability, validity and diagnostic accuracy; two examined predictive ability for adverse health outcomes; and one investigated validity, diagnostic accuracy and predictive ability. In total, 26 questionnaires and brief assessments and eight frailty indicators were analyzed, most of which were applied to community-dwelling older people. The Frailty Index was examined in almost all these dimensions, with the exception of reliability, and its diagnostic and predictive characteristics were shown to be satisfactory. Gait speed showed high sensitivity, but only moderate specificity, and excellent predictive ability for future disability in activities of daily living. The Tilburg Frailty Indicator was shown to be a reliable and valid measure for frailty screening, but its diagnostic accuracy was not evaluated. Screening Letter, Timed-up-and-go test and PRISMA 7 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) demonstrated high sensitivity and moderate specificity for identifying frailty. In general, low physical activity, variously measured, was one of the most powerful predictors of future decline in activities of daily living. Conclusion: Only a few frailty measures seem to be demonstrably valid, reliable and diagnostically accurate, and have good predictive ability. Among them, the Frailty Index and gait speed emerged as the most useful in routine care and community settings. However, none of the included systematic reviews provided responses that met all of our research questions on their own and there is a need for studies that could fill this gap, covering all these issues within the same study. Nevertheless, it was clear that no suitable tool for assessing frailty appropriately in emergency departments was identified.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Background: More than ever, the current increasing need for palliative care leads to health professionals providing this type of care which further leads to multiple challenges, and stressful and demanding situations. The multiple challenges of working in palliative care put health professionals working in this context at the risk of burnout. Objectives: To examine the evidence on the prevalence of burnout among health professionals working in palliative care. Inclusion criteria Types of participants: The current review included studies that encompass qualified health professionals working in palliative care, caring for patients 18 years of age or older. Condition: The current review considered studies reporting on the point prevalence of burnout, measured by a burnout scale, such as, but not limited to, the Maslach Burnout Inventory, Burnout Measure and Copenhagen Burnout Inventory. Context: The current review considered studies conducted in the context of specialist palliative care, more specifically, palliative care units, specialized palliative home care or hospices. Types of studies: The current review considered observational study designs, including prospective and retrospective cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. Search strategy: An initial search of MEDLINE (via PubMed) and CINAHL was undertaken, followed by a second search for published and unpublished studies since 1975 in major healthcare-related electronic databases. Studies written in English, Spanish and Portuguese were included. Methodological quality: Two independent reviewers assessed the methodological quality of studies using the standardized critical appraisal instrument from the Joanna Briggs Institute. No studies were excluded from the review based on the methodological appraisal. Data extraction: Data were extracted using a data extraction table, taking into account the review questions. Data synthesis: Significant differences were found between condition measures, thus we were unable to perform a meta-analysis. Results: Eight cross-sectional studies met the inclusion criteria, with a total of 1406 health professionals. The sample was limited to nurses, physicians and social workers. None of the included articles presented data about other health professionals. Seven of the included studies assessed the prevalence of burnout using the same instrument – the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Data revealed a prevalence of burnout of 17.3% among health professionals. Personal Accomplishment was the sub-scale from the Maslach Burnout Inventory that had the highest prevalence (19.5%). Nurses had higher levels of Emotional Exhaustion (19.5%) and Depersonalization (8.2%), and physicians had lower levels of Personal Accomplishment (41.2%). The prevalence of burnout was, however, higher in social workers (27%). The palliative care context with the highest prevalence of burnout was home care (19.6%). Conclusion: The current systematic review contributes to a body of empirical knowledge that can facilitate the professional development of palliative care teams by highlighting the prevalence of burnout in health professionals, which staff category is the most affected (social workers), and which palliative care context has the highest prevalence (home care).

Background: Age-related frailty is a multidimensional dynamic condition associated with adverse patient outcomes and high costs for health systems. Several interventions have been proposed to tackle frailty. This correspondence article describes the journey through the development of evidence- and consensus-based guidelines on interventions aimed at preventing, delaying or reversing frailty in the context of the FOCUS (Frailty Management Optimisation through EIP-AHA Commitments and Utilisation of Stakeholders Input) project (664367-FOCUS-HP-PJ-2014). The rationale, framework, processes and content of the guidelines are described.Main text: The guidelines were framed into four questions – one general and three on specific groups of interventions – all including frailty as the primary outcome of interest. Quantitative and qualitative studies and reviews conducted in the context of the FOCUS project represented the evidence base. We followed the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks based on assessment of whether the problem is a priority, the magnitude of the desirable and undesirable effects, the certainty of the evidence, stakeholders’ values, the balance between desirable and undesirable effects, the resource use, and other factors like acceptability and feasibility. Experts in the FOCUS consortium acted as panellists in the consensus process. Overall, we eventually recommended interventions intended to affect frailty as well as its course and related outcomes. Specifically, we recommended (1) physical activity programmes or nutritional interventions or a combination of both; (2) interventions based on tailored care and/or geriatric evaluation and management; and (3) interventions based on cognitive training (alone or in combination with exercise and nutritional supplementation). The panel did not support interventions based on hormone treatments or problem-solving therapy. However, all our recommendations were weak (provisional) due to the limited available evidence and based on heterogeneous studies of limited quality. Furthermore, they are conditional to the consideration of participant-, organisational- and contextual/cultural-related facilitators or barriers. There is insufficient evidence in favour of or against other types of interventions.Conclusions: We provided guidelines based on quantitative and qualitative evidence, adopting methodological standards, and integrating relevant stakeholders’ inputs and perspectives. We identified the need for further studies of a higher methodological quality to explore interventions with the potential to affect frailty.

Objective: to adapt to Portuguese, of Portugal, the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scales, a 21-item short scale (DASS 21), designed to measure depression, anxiety and stress. Method: After translation and back-translation with the help of experts, the DASS 21 was administered to patients in external psychiatry consults (N=101), and its internal consistency, construct validity and concurrent validity were measured. Results: The DASS 21 properties certify its quality to measure emotional states. The instrument reveals good internal consistency. Factorial analysis shows that the two-factor structure is more adequate. The first factor groups most of the items that theoretically assess anxiety and stress, and the second groups most of the items that assess depression, explaining, on the whole, 58.54% of total variance. The strong positive correlation between the DASS 21 and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HAD) confirms the hypothesis regarding the criterion validity, however, revealing fragilities as to the divergence between theoretically different constructs.