Search

The current sexual offender literature focuses on recidivism reduction in an effort to increase public safety. While cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) programs are considered a mainstream treatment method, it is essential to study recidivism as an indicator of treatment effectiveness. This meta-analysis examines research published since 1970 to determine the overall effectiveness of treatments in reducing recidivism among adult male sexual offenders. Decade of implementation and CBT treatment features are also assessed as moderator variables. The results from the 25 studies identified were converted into 42 weighted effect sizes utilizing a random-effects model. Significant overall effect sizes were found for sexual and violent/combination recidivism; however, multiple indices indicate heterogeneity in the effect sizes. Significant differences were found in the overall effectiveness of the treatments by decade, and the treatments delivered during the 1990s were found to be related to lower levels of sexual and violent/combination recidivism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are increasingly common. This article aims to provide guidance for people conducting systematic reviews relevant to the healthcare of older people. An awareness of these issues will also help people reading systematic reviews to determine whether the results will influence their clinical practice. It is essential that systematic reviews are performed by a team which includes the required technical and clinical expertise. Those performing reviews for the first time should ensure they have appropriate training and support. They must be planned and performed in a transparent and methodologically robust way: guidelines are available. The protocol should be written--and if possible published--before starting the review. Geriatricians will be interested in a table of baseline characteristics, which will help to determine if the studied samples or populations are similar to their patients. Reviews of studies of older people should consider how they will manage issues such as different age cut-offs; non-specific presentations; multiple predictors and outcomes; potential biases and confounders. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses may provide evidence to improve older people's care, or determine where new evidence is required. Newer methodologies, such as meta-analyses of individual level data, network meta-analyses and umbrella reviews, and realist synthesis, may improve the reliability and clinical utility of systematic reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: moving into long-term institutional care is a significant life event for any individual. Predictors of institutional care admission from community-dwellers and people with dementia have been described, but those from the acute hospital setting have not been systematically reviewed. Our aim was to establish predictive factors for discharge to institutional care following acute hospitalisation. Methods: we registered and conducted a systematic review (PROSPERO: CRD42015023497). We searched MEDLINE; EMBASE and CINAHL Plus in September 2015. We included observational studies of patients admitted directly to long-term institutional care following acute hospitalisation where factors associated with institutionalisation were reported. Results: from 9,176 records, we included 23 studies (n = 354,985 participants). Studies were heterogeneous, with the proportions discharged to a care home 3-77% (median 15%). Eleven studies (n = 12,642), of moderate to low quality, were included in the quantitative synthesis. The need for institutional long-term care was associated with age (pooled odds ratio (OR) 1.02, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 1.00-1.04), female sex (pooled OR 1.41, 95% CI: 1.03-1.92), dementia (pooled OR 2.14, 95% CI: 1.24-3.70) and functional dependency (pooled OR 2.06, 95% CI: 1.58-2.69). Conclusions: discharge to long-term institutional care following acute hospitalisation is common, but current data do not allow prediction of who will make this transition. Potentially important predictors evaluated in community cohorts have not been examined in hospitalised cohorts. Understanding these predictors could help identify individuals at risk early in their admission, and support them in this transition or potentially intervene to reduce their risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) may be helpful for the management of hypertension, but little is known about its tolerability in people with dementia. Objective: to review the published evidence to determine the tolerability of ABPM in people with dementia. Methods: English language search conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE, using Ambulatory blood pressure' AND 'Dementia' (and associated synonyms) from 1996 to March 2015. Inclusion criteria: people diagnosed with dementia AND in whom blood pressure was measured using ABPM. The initial search was undertaken using title and abstract reviews, with selected papers being agreed for inclusion by two reviewers. Potentially eligible papers were assessed, and high-quality papers were retained. Two reviewers agreed the abstracted data for analysis. Meta-analysis was used to combine results across studies. Results: of the 221 screened abstracts, 13 studies (6%) met inclusion criteria, 5 had sufficient data and were of sufficient quality, involving 461 participants, most of whom had mild--moderate dementia. 77.7% (95% CI 62.2-93.2%) were able to tolerate ABPM; agreement with office BP was moderate to weak (two studies only--coefficients 0.3-0.38 for systolic blood pressure and 0.11-0.32 for diastolic blood pressure). One study compared home BP monitoring by a relative or ambulatory BP monitoring with office BP measures and found high agreement (ϗ 0.81). The little available evidence suggested increased levels of dementia being associated with reduced tolerability. Conclusions: ABPM is well tolerated in people with mild-moderate dementia and provides some additional information over and above office BP alone. However, few studies have addressed ABPM in people with more severe dementia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]