Search

Background: Limited research exists on the process of applying knowledge translation (KT) methodology to a rural-based population health intervention. Methods: This study reports on the implementation and translational stages of a previously described Co-creating KT (Co-KT) framework in the rural town of Port Lincoln, South Australia (population: 14,000). The Co-KT framework involves five steps: (i) collecting local data; (ii) building stakeholder relationships; (iii) designing an evidence-based intervention incorporating local knowledge; (iv) implementation and evaluation of the intervention; and (v) translating the research into policy and practice. Barriers and enablers to the overall Co-KT implementation process were identified. Our intervention focused on musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions. Results: Although the Co-KT framework was valuable in engaging with the community, translating the final intervention into daily clinical practice was prevented by a lack of an accessible policy or financial framework to anchor the appropriate intervention, a lack of continued engagement with stakeholders, access problems to general practitioners (GPs) and Allied Health Professionals; and the paucity of referrals from GPs to Allied Health Professionals. Consequently, while many aspects of the intervention were successful, including the improvement of both function and pain in study participants, the full implementation of the Co-KT framework was not possible. Discussion: This study implemented and evaluated a Co-KT framework for a population with MSK conditions, linking locally generated health care system knowledge with academic input. Further policy, health system changes, and on-the-ground support are needed to overcome the identified implementation challenges in order to create sustainable and effective system change.

BACKGROUND: Air pollution has been associated with various health outcomes. Its effect on hand-grip strength, a measurement of the construct of muscle strength and health status, remains largely unknown. METHODS: We used the survey data from 31,209 adults ≥ 50 years of age within Wave 1 of the Study on Global AGEing and Adult Health in six low- and middle-income countries. The outdoor concentration of fine particulate matter pollution (PM2.5) was estimated using satellite data. Domestic fuel type and ventilation were used as indicators of indoor air pollution. We used multilevel linear regression models to examine the association between indoor and outdoor air pollution and hand-grip strength, as well as the potential effect modifiers. RESULTS: We found inverse associations between both indoor and outdoor air pollution and hand-grip strength. Each 10 μg/m3 increase in 3 years' averaged concentrations of outdoor PM2.5 corresponded to 0.70 kg (95% CI: -1.26, -0.14) lower hand-grip strength; and compared with electricity/liquid/gas fuel users, those using solid fuels had lower hand-grip strength (β = -1.25, 95% CI: -1.74, -0.75). However, we did not observe a statistically significant association between ventilation and hand-grip strength. We further observed that urban residents and those having a higher education level had a higher association between ambient PM2.5 and hand-grip strength, and men, young participants, smokers, rural participants, and those with lower household income had higher associations between indoor air pollution and hand-grip strength. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that both indoor and outdoor air pollution might be important risk factors of poorer health and functional status as indicated by hand-grip strength.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Frailty, loneliness, and social isolation are all associated with adverse outcomes in older adults, but little is known about their combined impact on mortality. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: The Longitudinal Aging Study Amsterdam. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling older adults aged 65 and older (n = 1,427). MEASUREMENTS: Frailty was measured with the frailty phenotype (Fried criteria). Loneliness was assessed with the De Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scale. Social isolation was operationalized using information on partner status, social support, and network size. Two categorical variables were created, for each possible combination regarding frailty and loneliness (FL) and frailty and social isolation (FS), respectively. Mortality was monitored over a period of 22 years (1995–2017). Survival curves and Cox proportional hazard models were used to study the effects of the FL and FS combinations on mortality. Analyses were adjusted for sociodemographic factors, depression, chronic diseases, and smoking. RESULTS: Frailty prevalence was 13%, and 5.9% of the sample were frail and lonely, and 6.2% frail and socially isolated. In fully adjusted models, older adults who were only frail had a higher risk of mortality compared with people without any of the conditions (hazard ratio [HR] range = 1.40–1.48; P

Background: Frailty is a common geriatric condition, well known to contribute to morbidity and mortality. What is not yet well articulated in the literature is the health service use of frail older people in rural areas. This study investigated the impact of frailty on health service use in rural South Australia. Methods: This secondary cross-sectional analysis included people aged ≥65 years from the LINKIN health census in Port Lincoln. Frailty was classified using a Frailty Index (FI) score ≥0.25. Health service use was determined by patient questionnaire. All regression analyses controlled for age, gender and education level. Results: 1501 people [mean (SD) age. =. 75.9 (7.9)] years were included. Frailty prevalence was 25%, with this prevalence higher in females (29%) than in males (21%). Compared with their non-frail peers, frail adults were more likely to have consulted health providers, including: general practitioners (GPs) (odds ratio (OR), 95% confidence interval (CI. =. 2.09, 1.24-3.53); physiotherapists (OR, CI. =. 2.42, 1.80-3.25); mental health providers (OR, CI. =. 2.88, 1.42-5.85); community nurses (OR, CI. =. 2.57, 1.73-3.82); and dieticians (OR, CI. =. 2.77, 1.77-4.48). They were also more likely to have visited a health professional prior to a problem occurring (OR, CI. =. 1.51, 1.08-2.11), travelled to the city for a specialist appointment (OR, CI. =. 1.53, 1.11-2.11), and to have been hospitalised in the previous 12 months (OR, CI. =. 2.39, 1.74-3.29). Conclusion: Frail older adults were more likely to use several health services, yet often had unmet needs in their health care.

Sarcopenia and frailty are highly prevalent conditions in older hospitalized patients, which are associated with a myriad of adverse clinical outcomes. This paper, prepared by a multidisciplinary expert working group from the Australian and New Zealand Society for Sarcopenia and Frailty Research (ANZSSFR), provides an up-to-date overview of current evidence and recommendations based on a narrative review of the literature for the screening, diagnosis, and management of sarcopenia and frailty in older patients within the hospital setting. It also includes suggestions on potential pathways to implement change to encourage widespread adoption of these evidence-informed recommendations within hospital settings. The expert working group concluded there was insufficient evidence to support any specific screening tool for sarcopenia and recommends an assessment of probable sarcopenia/sarcopenia using established criteria for all older (≥65 years) hospitalized patients or in younger patients with conditions (e.g., comorbidities) that may increase their risk of sarcopenia. Diagnosis of probable sarcopenia should be based on an assessment of low muscle strength (grip strength or five times sit-to-stand) with sarcopenia diagnosis including low muscle mass quantified from dual energy X-ray absorptiometry, bioelectrical impedance analysis or in the absence of diagnostic devices, calf circumference as a proxy measure. Severe sarcopenia is represented by the addition of impaired physical performance (slow gait speed). All patients with probable sarcopenia or sarcopenia should be investigated for causes (e.g., chronic/acute disease or malnutrition), and treated accordingly. For frailty, it is recommended that all hospitalized patients aged 70 years and older be screened using a validated tool [Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS), Hospital Frailty Risk Score, the FRAIL scale or the Frailty Index]. Patients screened as positive for frailty should undergo further clinical assessment using the Frailty Phenotype, Frailty Index or information collected from a Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA). All patients identified as frail should receive follow up by a health practitioner(s) for an individualized care plan. To treat older hospitalized patients with probable sarcopenia, sarcopenia, or frailty, it is recommended that a structured and supervised multi-component exercise program incorporating elements of resistance (muscle strengthening), challenging balance, and functional mobility training be prescribed as early as possible combined with nutritional support to optimize energy and protein intake and correct any deficiencies. There is insufficient evidence to recommend pharmacological agents for the treatment of sarcopenia or frailty. Finally, to facilitate integration of these recommendations into hospital settings organization-wide approaches are needed, with the Spread and Sustain framework recommended to facilitate organizational culture change, with the help of ‘champions’ to drive these changes. A multidisciplinary team approach incorporating awareness and education initiatives for healthcare professionals is recommended to ensure that screening, diagnosis and management approaches for sarcopenia and frailty are embedded and sustained within hospital settings. Finally, patients and caregivers’ education should be integrated into the care pathway to facilitate adherence to prescribed management approaches for sarcopenia and frailty. © 2022, The Author(s).