STOPP/START interventions to improve medicines management for people aged 65 years and over: a realist synthesis

BackgroundHealth-care systems across the globe are facing increased pressures to balance the efficient use of resources and at the same time provide high-quality care. There is greater requirement for services to be evidence based, but practices that are of limited clinical effectiveness or cost-effectiveness still occur.ObjectivesOur objectives included completing a concept analysis of de-implementation, surfacing decision-making processes associated with de-implementing through stakeholder engagement, and generating an evidence-based realist programme theory of ‘what works’ in de-implementation.DesignA realist synthesis was conducted using an iterative stakeholder-driven four-stage approach. Phase 1 involved scoping the literature and conducting stakeholder interviews to develop the concept analysis and an initial programme theory. In Phase 2, systematic searches of the evidence were conducted to test and develop this theory, expressed in the form of contingent relationships. These are expressed as context–mechanism–outcomes to show how particular contexts or conditions trigger mechanisms to generate outcomes. Phase 3 consisted of validation and refinement of programme theories through stakeholder interviews. The final phase (i.e. Phase 4) formulated actionable recommendations for service leaders.ParticipantsIn total, 31 stakeholders (i.e. user/patient representatives, clinical managers, commissioners) took part in focus groups and telephone interviews.Data sourcesUsing keywords identified during the scoping work and concept analysis, searches of bibliographic databases were conducted in May 2018. The databases searched were the Cochrane Library, Campbell Collaboration, MEDLINE (via EBSCOhost), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (via EBSCOhost), the National Institute for Health Research Journals Library and the following databases via the ProQuest platform: Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Social Services Abstracts, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Social Sciences Database and Sociological Abstracts. Alerts were set up for the MEDLINE database from May 2018 to December 2018. Online sources were searched for grey literature and snowballing techniques were used to identify clusters of evidence.ResultsThe concept analysis showed that de-implementation is associated with five main components in context and over time: (1) what is being de-implemented, (2) the issues driving de-implementation, (3) the action characterising de-implementation, (4) the extent that de-implementation is planned or opportunistic and (5) the consequences of de-implementation. Forty-two papers were synthesised to identify six context–mechanism–outcome configurations, which focused on issues ranging from individual behaviours to organisational procedures. Current systems can perpetuate habitual decision-making practices that include low-value treatments. Electronic health records can be designed to hide or remove low-value treatments from choice options, foregrounding best evidence. Professionals can be made aware of their decision-making strategies through increasing their attention to low-value practice behaviours. Uncertainty about diagnosis or patients’ expectations for certain treatments provide opportunities for ‘watchful waiting’ as an active strategy to reduce inappropriate investigations and prescribing. The emotional component of clinician–patient relationships can limit opportunities for de-implementation, requiring professional support through multimodal educational interventions. Sufficient alignment between policy, public and professional perspectives is required for de-implementation success.LimitationsSome specific clinical issues (e.g. de-prescribing) dominate the de-implementation evidence base, which may limit the transferability of the synthesis findings. Any realist inquiry generates findings that are essentially cumulative and should be developed through further investigation that extends the range of sources into, for example, clinical research and further empirical studies.ConclusionsThis review contributes to our understanding of how de-implementation of low-value procedures and services can be improved within health-care services, through interventions that make professional decision-making more accountable and the prominence of a whole-system approach to de-implementation. Given the whole-system context of de-implementation, a range of different dissemination strategies will be required to engage with different stakeholders, in different ways, to change practice and policy in a timely manner.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017081030.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 2. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Ethnic inequalities in health-related quality of life among older adults in England: secondary analysis of a national cross-sectional survey

Evaluation of the National Institute for Health and Care Research’s (NIHR) Global Health Research (GHR) Portfolio - Inception Report

BackgroundCare home staff have a critical bearing on quality. The staff employed, the training they receive and how well they identify and manage residents’ needs are likely to influence outcomes. The Care Act 2014 (Great Britain.The Care Act 2014. London: The Stationery Office; 2014) requires services to improve ‘well-being’, but many residents cannot self-report and are at risk of exclusion from giving their views. The Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit enables social care-related quality of life to be measured using a mixed-methods approach. There is currently no equivalent way of measuring aspects of residents’ health-related quality of life. We developed new tools for measuring pain, anxiety and depression using a mixed-methods approach. We also explored the relationship between care home quality, residents’ outcomes, and the skill mix and employment conditions of the workforce who support them.ObjectivesThe objectives were to develop and test measures of pain, anxiety and depression for residents unable to self-report; to assess the extent to which regulator quality ratings reflect residents’ care-related quality of life; and to assess the relationship between aspects of the staffing of care homes and the quality of care homes.DesignThis was a mixed-methods study.SettingThe setting was care homes for older adults in England.ParticipantsCare home residents participated.ResultsThree measures of pain, anxiety and low mood were developed and tested, using a mixed-methods approach, with 182 care home residents in 20 care homes (nursing and residential). Psychometric testing found that the measures had good construct validity. The mixed-methods approach was both feasible and necessary with this population, as the majority of residents could not self-report. Using a combined data set (n = 475 residents in 54 homes) from this study and the Measuring Outcomes in Care Homes study (Towers AM, Palmer S, Smith N, Collins G, Allan S. A cross-sectional study exploring the relationship between regulator quality ratings and care home residents’ quality of life in England.Health Qual Life Outcomes2019;17:22) we found a significant positive association between residents’ social care-related quality of life and regulator (i.e. Care Quality Commission) quality ratings. Multivariate regression revealed that homes rated ‘good/outstanding’ are associated with a 12% improvement in mean current social care-related quality of life among residents who have higher levels of dependency. Secondary data analysis of a large, national sample of care homes over time assessed the impact of staffing and employment conditions on Care Quality Commission quality ratings. Higher wages and a higher prevalence of training in both dementia and dignity-/person-centred care were positively associated with care quality, whereas high staff turnover and job vacancy rates had a significant negative association. A 10% increase in the average care worker wage increased the likelihood of a ‘good/outstanding’ rating by 7%.LimitationsNo care homes rated as inadequate were recruited to the study.ConclusionsThe most dependent residents gain the most from homes rated ‘good/outstanding’. However, measuring the needs and outcomes of these residents is challenging, as many cannot self-report. A mixed-methods approach can reduce methodological exclusion and an over-reliance on proxies. Improving working conditions and reducing staff turnover may be associated with better outcomes for residents.Future workFurther work is required to explore the relationship between pain, anxiety and low mood and other indicators of care homes quality and to examine the relationship between wages, training and social care outcomes.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full inHealth Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 19. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background Interoperable networks connect information technology systems of different organisations, allowing professionals in one organisation to access patient data held in another one. Health policy-makers in many countries believe that they will improve the co-ordination of services and, hence, the quality of services and patient safety. To the best of our knowledge, there have not been any previous systematic reviews of the effects of these networks on patient safety. Objectives The aim of the study was to establish how, why and in what circumstances interoperable information technology networks improved patient safety, failed to do so or increased safety risks. The objectives of the study were to (1) identify programme theories and prioritise theories to review; (2) search systematically for evidence to test the theories; (3) undertake quality appraisal, and use included texts to support, refine or reject programme theories; (4) synthesise the findings; and (5) disseminate the findings to a range of audiences. Design Realist synthesis, including consultation with stakeholders in nominal groups and semistructured interviews. Settings and participants Following a stakeholder prioritisation process, several domains were reviewed: older people living at home requiring co-ordinated care, at-risk children living at home and medicines reconciliation services for any patients living at home. The effects of networks on services in health economies were also investigated. Intervention An interoperable network that linked at least two organisations, including a maximum of one hospital, in a city or region. Outcomes Increase, reduction or no change in patients’ risks, such as a change in the risk of taking an inappropriate medication. Results We did not find any detailed accounts of the ways in which interoperable networks are intended to work and improve patient safety. Theory fragments were identified and used to develop programme and mid-range theories. There is good evidence that there are problems with the co-ordination of services in each of the domains studied. The implicit hypothesis about interoperable networks is that they help to solve co-ordination problems, but evidence across the domains showed that professionals found interoperable networks difficult to use. There is insufficient evidence about the effectiveness of interoperable networks to allow us to establish how and why they affect patient safety. Limitations The lack of evidence about patient-specific measures of effectiveness meant that we were not able to determine ‘what works’, nor any variations in what works, when interoperable networks are deployed and used by health and social care professionals. Conclusions There is a dearth of evidence about the effects of interoperable networks on patient safety. It is not clear if the networks are associated with safer treatment and care, have no effects or increase clinical risks. Future work Possible future research includes primary studies of the effectiveness of interoperable networks, of economies of scope and scale and, more generally, on the value of information infrastructures. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017073004. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

© Crown copyright 2013. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0© Queen’s Printer and Controller of HMSO 2019. This work was produced by Harriset al.under the terms of a commissioning contract issued by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. This issue may be freely reproduced for the purposes of private research and study and extracts (or indeed, the full report) may be included in professional journals provided that suitable acknowledgement is made and the reproduction is not associated with any form of advertising. Applications for commercial reproduction should be addressed to: NIHR Journals Library, National Institute for Health Research, Evaluation, Trials and Studies Coordinating Centre, Alpha House, University of Southampton Science Park, Southampton SO16 7NS, UK.20132019Crown copyrightQueen’s Printer and Controller of HMSOBackgroundThe government response to the care failures at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust led to the policy imperative of ‘regular interaction and engagement between nurses and patients’ (Francis R.Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. London: The Stationery Office; 2013. © Crown copyright 2013. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0) in the NHS. The pressure on nursing to act resulted in the introduction of the US model, known as ‘intentional rounding’, into nursing practice. This is a timed, planned intervention that sets out to address fundamental elements of nursing care by means of a regular bedside ward round.ObjectivesThe study aims were to examine what it is about intentional rounding in hospital wards that works, for whom and in what circumstances.DesignA multimethod study design was undertaken using realist evaluation methodology. The study was conducted in four phases: (1) theory development; (2) a national survey of all NHS acute trusts in England; (3) in-depth case studies of six wards, involving individual interviews, observations, retrieval of routinely collected ward outcome data and analysis of costs; and (4) synthesis of the study findings.SettingThe study was conducted in acute NHS trusts in England.ParticipantsA total of 108 acute NHS trusts participated in the survey. Seventeen senior managers, 33 front-line nurses, 28 non-nursing professionals, 34 patients and 28 carers participated in individual interviews. Thirty-nine members of nursing staff were shadowed during their delivery of intentional rounding and the direct care received by 28 patients was observed.Review methodsA realist synthesis was undertaken to identify eight context–mechanism–outcome configurations, which were tested and refined using evidence collected in subsequent research phases.ResultsThe national survey showed that 97% of NHS trusts had implemented intentional rounding in some way. Data synthesis from survey, observation and interview findings showed that only two of the original eight mechanisms were partially activated (consistency and comprehensiveness, and accountability). The evidence for two mechanisms was inconclusive (visibility of nurses and anticipation); there was minimal evidence for one mechanism (multidisciplinary teamwork and communication) and no evidence for the remaining three (allocated time to care, nurse–patient relationships and communication, and patient empowerment). A total of 240 intentional rounds were observed within 188 hours of care delivery observation. Although 86% of all intentional rounding interactions were observed to be documented, fidelity to the original intervention [i.e. the Studer Group protocol (Studer Group.Best Practices: Sacred Heart Hospital, Pensacola, Florida. Hourly Rounding Supplement. Gulf Breeze, FL: Studer Group; 2007)] was generally low.LimitationsIntentional rounding was often difficult for researchers to observe, as it was rarely delivered as a discrete activity but instead undertaken alongside other nursing activities. Furthermore, a lack of findings about the influence of intentional rounding on patient outcomes in the safety thermometer data limits inferences on how mechanisms link to clinical outcomes for patients.ConclusionsThe evidence from this study demonstrates that the effectiveness of intentional rounding, as currently implemented and adapted in England, is very weak and falls short of the theoretically informed mechanisms. There was ambivalence and concern expressed that intentional rounding oversimplifies nursing, privileges a transactional and prescriptive approach over relational nursing care, and prioritises accountability and risk management above individual responsive care.Future workIt is suggested that the insights and messages from this study inform a national conversation about whether or not intentional rounding is the optimum intervention to support the delivery of fundamental nursing care to patients, or if the time is right to shape alternative solutions.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Background For systematic reviews to be rigorous, deliverable and useful, they need a well-defined review question. Scoping for a review also requires the specification of clear inclusion criteria and planned synthesis methods. Guidance is lacking on how to develop these, especially in the context of undertaking rapid and responsive systematic reviews to inform health services and health policy. Objective This report describes and discusses the experiences of review scoping of three commissioned research centres that conducted evidence syntheses to inform health and social care organisation, delivery and policy in the UK, between 2017 and 2020. Data sources Sources included researcher recollection, project meeting minutes, e-mail correspondence with stakeholders and scoping searches, from allocation of a review topic through to review protocol agreement. Methods We produced eight descriptive case studies of selected reviews from the three teams. From case studies, we identified key issues that shape the processes of scoping and question formulation for evidence synthesis. The issues were then discussed and lessons drawn. Findings Across the eight diverse case studies, we identified 14 recurrent issues that were important in shaping the scoping processes and formulating a review’s questions. There were ‘consultative issues’ that related to securing input from review commissioners, policy customers, experts, patients and other stakeholders. These included managing and deciding priorities, reconciling different priorities/perspectives, achieving buy-in and engagement, educating the end-user about synthesis processes and products, and managing stakeholder expectations. There were ‘interface issues’ that related to the interaction between the review team and potential review users. These included identifying the niche/gap and optimising value, assuring and balancing rigour/reliability/relevance, and assuring the transferability/applicability of study evidence to specific policy/service user contexts. There were also ‘technical issues’ that were associated with the methods and conduct of the review. These were choosing the method(s) of synthesis, balancing fixed and fluid review questions/components/definitions, taking stock of what research already exists, mapping versus scoping versus reviewing, scoping/relevance as a continuous process and not just an initial stage, and calibrating general compared with specific and broad compared with deep coverage of topics. Limitations As a retrospective joint reflection by review teams on their experiences of scoping processes, this report is not based on prospectively collected research data. In addition, our evaluations were not externally validated by, for example, policy and service evidence users or patients and the public. Conclusions We have summarised our reflections on scoping from this programme of reviews as 14 common issues and 28 practical ‘lessons learned’. Effective scoping of rapid, responsive reviews extends beyond information exchange and technical procedures for specifying a ‘gap’ in the evidence. These considerations work alongside social processes, in particular the building of relationships and shared understanding between reviewers, research commissioners and potential review users that may be reflective of consultancy, negotiation and co-production models of research and information use. Funding This report has been based on work commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research (HSDR) programme as three university-based evidence synthesis centres to inform the organisation, delivery and commissioning of health and social care; at the University of Exeter (NIHR 16/47/22), the University of Sheffield (NIHR 16/47/17) and the University of York (NIHR 16/47/11). This report was commissioned by the NIHR HSDR programme as a review project (NIHR132708) within the NIHR HSDR programme. This project was funded by the NIHR HSDR programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Editorial introductions

Editorial introductions

Background Organising health-care services for residents living in care homes is an important area of development in the UK and elsewhere. Medical care is provided by general practitioners in the UK, and the unique arrangement of the NHS means that general practitioners are also gatekeepers to other health services. Despite recent focus on improving health care for residents, there is a lack of knowledge about the role of general practitioners. Objectives First, to review reports of research and quality improvement (or similar change management) in care homes to explore how general practitioners have been involved. Second, to develop programme theories explaining the role of general practitioners in improvement initiatives and outcomes. Design A realist review was selected to address the complexity of integration of general practice and care homes. Setting Care homes for older people in the UK, including residential and nursing homes. Participants The focus of the literature review was the general practitioner, along with care home staff and other members of multidisciplinary teams. Alongside the literature, we interviewed general practitioners and held consultations with a Context Expert Group, including a care home representative. Interventions The primary search did not specify interventions, but captured the range of interventions reported. Secondary searches focused on medication review and end-of-life care because these interventions have described general practitioner involvement. Outcomes We sought to capture processes or indicators of good-quality care. Data sources Sources were academic databases [including MEDLINE, EMBASE™ (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycInfo® (American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, USA), Web of Science™ (Clarivate Analytics, Philadelphia, PA, USA) and Cochrane Collaboration] and grey literature using Google Scholar (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA). Methods Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) guidelines were followed, comprising literature scoping, interviews with general practitioners, iterative searches of academic databases and grey literature, and synthesis and development of overarching programme theories. Results Scoping indicated the distinctiveness of the health and care system in UK and, because quality improvement is context dependent, we decided to focus on UK studies because of potential problems in synthesising across diverse systems. Searches identified 73 articles, of which 43 were excluded. To summarise analysis, programme theory 1 was ‘negotiated working with general practitioners’ where other members of the multidisciplinary team led initiatives and general practitioners provided support with the parts of improvement where their skills as primary care doctors were specifically required. Negotiation enabled matching of the diverse ways of working of general practitioners with diverse care home organisations. We found evidence that this could result in improvements in prescribing and end-of-life care for residents. Programme theory 2 included national or regional programmes that included clearly specified roles for general practitioners. This provided clarity of expectation, but the role that general practitioners actually played in delivery was not clear. Limitations One reviewer screened all search results, but two reviewers conducted selection and data extraction steps. Conclusions If local quality improvement initiatives were flexible, then they could be used to negotiate to build a trusting relationship with general practitioners, with evidence from specific examples, and this could improve prescribing and end-of-life care for residents. Larger improvement programmes aimed to define working patterns and build suitable capacity in care homes, but there was little evidence about the extent of local general practitioner involvement. Future work Future work should describe the specific role, capacity and expertise of general practitioners, as well as the diversity of relationships between general practitioners and care homes. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019137090. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 20. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

ObjectiveTo understand how different outcomes are achieved from adult patients receiving hospital discharge letters from inpatient and outpatient settings.DesignRealist review conducted in six main steps: (1) development of initial theory,...

BackgroundHealth-care systems are increasingly moving towards more integrated approaches. Shared decision-making (SDM) is central to these models but may be complicated by the need to negotiate and communicate decisions between multiple providers, as well as patients and their family carers; this is particularly the case for older people with complex needs.ObjectivesTo provide a context-relevant understanding of how models to facilitate SDM might work for older people with multiple health and care needs and how they might be applied to integrated care models.DesignRealist synthesis following Realist and Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) publication standards.ParticipantsTwenty-four stakeholders took part in interviews.Data sourcesElectronic databases including MEDLINE (via PubMed), The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Google and Google Scholar (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA). Lateral searches were also carried out. All types of evidence were included.Review methodsIterative stakeholder-driven, three-stage approach, involving (1) scoping of the literature and stakeholder interviews (n = 13) to develop initial programme theory/ies, (2) systematic searches for evidence to test and develop the theories and (3) validation of programme theory/ies with stakeholders (n = 11).ResultsWe included 88 papers, of which 29 focused on older people or people with complex needs. We identified four theories (context–mechanism–outcome configurations) that together provide an account of what needs to be in place for SDM to work for older people with complex needs: understanding and assessing patient and carer values and capacity to access and use care; organising systems to support and prioritise SDM; supporting and preparing patients and family carers to engage in SDM; and a person-centred culture of which SDM is a part. Programmes likely to be successful in promoting SDM are those that create trust between those involved, allow service users to feel that they are respected and understood, and engender confidence to engage in SDM.LimitationsThere is a lack of evidence on interventions to promote SDM in older people with complex needs or on interprofessional approaches to SDM.ConclusionsModels of SDM for older people with complex health and care needs should be conceptualised as a series of conversations that patients, and their family carers, may have with a variety of different health and care professionals. To embed SDM in practice requires a shift from a biomedical focus to a more person-centred ethos. Service providers are likely to need support, both in terms of the way services are organised and delivered and in terms of their own continuing professional development. Older people with complex needs may need support to engage in SDM. How this support is best provided needs further exploration, although face-to-face interactions and ongoing patient–professional relationships are key.Future workThere is a need for further work to establish how organisational structures can be better aligned to meet the requirements of older people with complex needs. This includes a need to define and evaluate the contribution that different members of health and care teams can make to SDM for older people with complex health and care needs.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016039013.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Background The number and proportion of older people in the UK are increasing, as are multimorbidity (potentially reducing quality of life) and polypharmacy (increasing the risk of adverse drug events). Together, these complex factors are challenging for older people, informal carers, and health and care practitioners. Objectives MEMORABLE (MEdication Management in Older people: Realist Approaches Based on Literature and Evaluation) aimed to understand how medication management works and propose improvements. Design A realist approach informed three work packages, combining a realist review of secondary data with a realist evaluation of primary interview data, in a theory-driven, causal analysis. Setting The setting was in the community. Participants Older people, informal carers, and health and care practitioners. Interventions Studies relating to medication management and to reviewing and reconciling medications; and realist-informed interviews. Main outcome measures Not applicable. Data sources MEDLINE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature) and EMBASE were searched (all searched from January 2009 to July 2017; searched on 1 August 2017). Supplementary articles were identified by the Research Team. Data were also obtained through interviews. Review methods Searches of electronic databases were supplemented by citation-tracking for explanatory contributions, as well as accessing topic-relevant grey literature. Following RAMESES (Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards) guidelines, articles were screened and iteratively analysed with interview data, to generate theory-informed (normalisation process theory) explanations. Results Developing a framework to explain medication management as a complex intervention across five stages: identifying problem (Stage 1), starting, changing or stopping medications (Stage 3) and continuing to take medications (Stage 4), where older people, sometimes with informal carers, make individual decisions and follow routines that fit medication management into their day-to-day lives, engendering a sense of control. In getting diagnosis and/or medications (Stage 2) and reviewing/reconciling medications (Stage 5), older people and practitioners share decision-making in time-limited contacts: involving four steps – sense-making, relationships, action and reflection/monitoring (normalisation process theory); and conceptualising burden – through a detailed analysis of Stage 5, generating a theoretical framework and identifying five burden types amendable to mitigation: ambiguity, concealment, unfamiliarity, fragmentation and exclusion. Proposing interventions: risk identification – a simple way of identifying older people and informal carers who are not coping, at risk and who need appropriate help and support; and individualised information – a short, personalised record and reference point, co-produced and shared by older people, informal carers and practitioners that addresses the experience of living with multimorbidities and polypharmacy. Limitations Few studies directly address the complexity of medication management as a process and how it works. Limitations included, having identified the overall complexity, the need to focus the analysis on reviewing/reconciling medications (Stage 5), the exclusion of non-English-language literature, the focus on non-institutionalised populations and the broad definition of older people. Conclusions MEMORABLE explored the complexity of medication management. It highlighted the way interpersonal stages in the medication management process, notably reviewing/reconciling medications, contribute to the mitigation of burdens that are often hidden. Future work Co-produced studies to scope and trial the two proposed interventions; studies to extend the detailed understanding of medication management, linked to burden mitigation; and a study to clarify the medication management outcomes wanted by older people, informal carers and practitioners. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016043506. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 8, No. 26. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

ObjectivesAdolescent risk behaviours are a key health concern. The purpose of this research is to gaina deeper understanding of how, why, for whom, and inwhat circumstances complex adolescent risk behaviourprevention...

BackgroundThis study aimed to characterise patterns of tobacco smoking and vaping among older adults (≥ 65 years) in England, to explore harm perceptions of e-cigarettes among those who smoke, and to estimate the real-world effectiveness of e-cigarettes for helping older adults to stop smoking.MethodsData were collected as part of a representative monthly cross-sectional household survey in England between April 2014 and April 2024 (n = 197,219). We analysed differences between older (≥ 65 years) and younger/middle-aged adults (18–64 years) in (a) time trends in tobacco smoking and vaping, (b) harm perceptions of e-cigarettes vs. cigarettes (adjusting for gender, socioeconomic position, and vaping status), and (c) the real-world effectiveness of e-cigarettes for smoking cessation (adjusting for gender, socioeconomic position, characteristics of the quit attempt, and use of other evidence-based cessation aids).ResultsTobacco smoking prevalence remained relatively unchanged over time among older adults (at ~ 9%; 9.5% [8.5–10.6%] in April 2014 and 8.7% [7.7–9.8%] in April 2024) but vaping prevalence increased (from 2.1% [1.6–2.7%] to 3.7% [3.0–4.6%], respectively). These trends differed from those observed among younger/middle-aged adults, among whom there was a clear decline in smoking (from 21.8% [21.0–22.7%] to 18.2% [17.3–19.0%]) and a larger increase in vaping (from 5.6% [5.2–6.1%] to 16.2% [15.3–17.0%]). Older adults were consistently less likely than younger/middle-aged adults to use e-cigarettes to support attempts to quit smoking (26.8% [17.2–39.3%] vs. 43.7% [39.6–48.0%] in April 2024). Older smokers reported greater uncertainty about the harms of e-cigarettes compared with cigarettes (ORadj = 2.48 [2.28–2.69]). E-cigarettes appeared to be effective for helping older adults to stop smoking (ORadj = 1.50 [0.96–2.34]); whether effectiveness was lower than for younger/middle-aged adults was inconclusive.ConclusionsOver the past decade, smoking prevalence has remained stable among older adults while decreasing among the rest of the adult population in England. Older adults are more unsure about the relative harms of e-cigarettes and less likely to use them to support attempts to quit smoking, despite evidence that they are effective for smoking cessation in this population.