Food Settings and the health and wellbeing of older people: An annotated bibliography and summary of the literature

Little evidence has been collated on the role that food settings play in the health and wellbeing of older people. The purpose of this bibliography is to bring together evidence from a variety of fields and to begin to identify common themes, key learning and gaps in the literature. This annotated bibliography and summary of the literature review is a stepping stone to a narrative account of the field

Socioeconomic determinants of cardiovascular diseases, obesity, and diabetes among migrants in the United Kingdom: A systematic review

There has been little agreement on the role that socioeconomic factors play in the aetiology of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), obesity, and diabetes among migrants in the United Kingdom (UK). We systematically reviewed the existing evidence on this association to contribute to filling this gap in the literature. Two reviewers were involved at each stage of the review process to ensure validity. We comprehensively searched through several electronic databases and grey literature sources to identify potentially eligible papers for our review. We extracted data from our finally included studies and appraised the methodological rigour of our studies. A narrative synthesis approach was used to synthesise and interpret the extracted data. We sieved through 2485 records identified from our search and finally obtained 10 studies that met our inclusion criteria. The findings of this review show that there is a trend towards an association between socioeconomic factors and CVDs, diabetes, and obesity among migrants in the UK. However, the picture was more complex when specific socioeconomic variables and migrant subgroups were analysed. The evidence for this association is inconclusive and its causal relationship remains speculative. There is, therefore, the need for further research to understand the exact association between socioeconomic factors and CVD, diabetes, and obesity among migrants in the UK

Apart but not alone? A cross-sectional study of neighbour support in a major UK urban area during the COVID-19 lockdown

Background: Evidence from a range of major public health incidents shows that neighbour-based action can have a critical role in emergency response, assistance and recovery. However, there is little research to date on neighbour-based action during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic. This article reports on a survey of people engaged in supporting their neighbours in weeks three and four of the UK COVID-19 lockdown.Methods: Members of area-based and community of interest COVID-19 support groups in the Bristol conurbation were invited to complete an online survey. Of 1,255 people who clicked on the survey link, 862 responded; of these, 539 responses were eligible for analysis.Results: Respondents reported providing a wide range of support that went beyond health information, food and medical prescription assistance, to include raising morale through humour, creativity and acts of kindness and solidarity. A substantial proportion felt that they had become more involved in neighbourhood life following the lockdown and had an interest in becoming more involved in future. Neighbour support spanned all adult age groups, including older people categorised as being at-risk to the virus. With respect to most measures, there were no differences in the characteristics of support between respondents in areas of higher and lower deprivation. However, respondents from more deprived areas were more likely to state that they were involved in supporting certain vulnerable groups.Conclusions: As with previous research on major social upheavals, our findings suggest that responses to the viral pandemic and associated social restrictions may increase existing social and health inequalities, and further research should explore this issue in more depth

Nostalgia as a psychological resource for people with dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence of effectiveness from experimental studies

Objective: This review systematically examines evidence relating to the effect of nostalgia on psychological well-being through a meta-analysis of measures of social connectedness, self-esteem, meaning in life, self-continuity, optimism and positive and negative affect. Rationale: If nostalgia is to be used as a clinical intervention to boost well-being in dementia by reducing threat, then it is important to assess its therapeutic potential. Results: Searches carried out in July 2014 and updated in February 2018 identified 47 eligible experimental studies comparing nostalgic reminiscence and non-nostalgic reminiscence to be included in the meta-analysis. Nostalgic reminiscence had moderate effects on positive affect (0.51 (0.37, 0.65), p= 0.001), social connectedness (0.72 (0.57, 0.87), p= 0.001), self-esteem (0.50 (0.30, 0.70), p= 0.001), meaning in life (0.77 (0.47, 1.08), p= 0.001) and optimism (0.38 (0.28, 0.47), p= 0.001) and a large effect on self-continuity (0.81 (0.55, 1.07), p= 0.001). There was, however, no difference between the effect of nostalgic reminiscence and non-nostalgic reminiscence for negative affect (−0.06 (−0.20, 0.09), p= 0.443). Conclusion: This systematic review and meta-analysis provides an overview of the evidence base for nostalgia. This is an important stage in developing nostalgia as a clinical intervention for people with dementia which might be achieved, for instance, by adapting current reminiscence and life review techniques. This meta-analysis will therefore also serve as a valuable reference point for the continued exploration of nostalgia as an intervention

Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for 29 Cancer Groups From 2010 to 2019: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019.

The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 (GBD 2019) provided systematic estimates of incidence, morbidity, and mortality to inform local and international efforts toward reducing cancer burden. To estimate cancer burden and trends globally for 204 countries and territories and by Sociodemographic Index (SDI) quintiles from 2010 to 2019. The GBD 2019 estimation methods were used to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2019 and over the past decade. Estimates are also provided by quintiles of the SDI, a composite measure of educational attainment, income per capita, and total fertility rate for those younger than 25 years. Estimates include 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). In 2019, there were an estimated 23.6 million (95% UI, 22.2-24.9 million) new cancer cases (17.2 million when excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 10.0 million (95% UI, 9.36-10.6 million) cancer deaths globally, with an estimated 250 million (235-264 million) DALYs due to cancer. Since 2010, these represented a 26.3% (95% UI, 20.3%-32.3%) increase in new cases, a 20.9% (95% UI, 14.2%-27.6%) increase in deaths, and a 16.0% (95% UI, 9.3%-22.8%) increase in DALYs. Among 22 groups of diseases and injuries in the GBD 2019 study, cancer was second only to cardiovascular diseases for the number of deaths, years of life lost, and DALYs globally in 2019. Cancer burden differed across SDI quintiles. The proportion of years lived with disability that contributed to DALYs increased with SDI, ranging from 1.4% (1.1%-1.8%) in the low SDI quintile to 5.7% (4.2%-7.1%) in the high SDI quintile. While the high SDI quintile had the highest number of new cases in 2019, the middle SDI quintile had the highest number of cancer deaths and DALYs. From 2010 to 2019, the largest percentage increase in the numbers of cases and deaths occurred in the low and low-middle SDI quintiles. The results of this systematic analysis suggest that the global burden of cancer is substantial and growing, with burden differing by SDI. These results provide comprehensive and comparable estimates that can potentially inform efforts toward equitable cancer control around the world.Funding/Support: The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation received funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the American Lebanese Syrian Associated Charities. Dr Aljunid acknowledges the Department of Health Policy and Management of Kuwait University and the International Centre for Casemix and Clinical Coding, National University of Malaysia for the approval and support to participate in this research project. Dr Bhaskar acknowledges institutional support from the NSW Ministry of Health and NSW Health Pathology. Dr Bärnighausen was supported by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation through the Alexander von Humboldt Professor award, which is funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research. Dr Braithwaite acknowledges funding from the National Institutes of Health/ National Cancer Institute. Dr Conde acknowledges financial support from the European Research Council ERC Starting Grant agreement No 848325. Dr Costa acknowledges her grant (SFRH/BHD/110001/2015), received by Portuguese national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia, IP under the Norma Transitória grant DL57/2016/CP1334/CT0006. Dr Ghith acknowledges support from a grant from Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF16OC0021856). Dr Glasbey is supported by a National Institute of Health Research Doctoral Research Fellowship. Dr Vivek Kumar Gupta acknowledges funding support from National Health and Medical Research Council Australia. Dr Haque thanks Jazan University, Saudi Arabia for providing access to the Saudi Digital Library for this research study. Drs Herteliu, Pana, and Ausloos are partially supported by a grant of the Romanian National Authority for Scientific Research and Innovation, CNDS-UEFISCDI, project number PN-III-P4-ID-PCCF-2016-0084. Dr Hugo received support from the Higher Education Improvement Coordination of the Brazilian Ministry of Education for a sabbatical period at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, between September 2019 and August 2020. Dr Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam acknowledges funding by a National Heart Foundation of Australia Fellowship and National Health and Medical Research Council Emerging Leadership Fellowship. Dr Jakovljevic acknowledges support through grant OI 175014 of the Ministry of Education Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia. Dr Katikireddi acknowledges funding from a NHS Research Scotland Senior Clinical Fellowship (SCAF/15/02), the Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00022/2), and the Scottish Government Chief Scientist Office (SPHSU17). Dr Md Nuruzzaman Khan acknowledges the support of Jatiya Kabi Kazi Nazrul Islam University, Bangladesh. Dr Yun Jin Kim was supported by the Research Management Centre, Xiamen University Malaysia (XMUMRF/2020-C6/ITCM/0004). Dr Koulmane Laxminarayana acknowledges institutional support from Manipal Academy of Higher Education. Dr Landires is a member of the Sistema Nacional de Investigación, which is supported by Panama’s Secretaría Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación. Dr Loureiro was supported by national funds through Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia under the Scientific Employment Stimulus–Institutional Call (CEECINST/00049/2018). Dr Molokhia is supported by the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Center at Guy’s and St Thomas’ National Health Service Foundation Trust and King’s College London. Dr Moosavi appreciates NIGEB's support. Dr Pati acknowledges support from the SIAN Institute, Association for Biodiversity Conservation & Research. Dr Rakovac acknowledges a grant from the government of the Russian Federation in the context of World Health Organization Noncommunicable Diseases Office. Dr Samy was supported by a fellowship from the Egyptian Fulbright Mission Program. Dr Sheikh acknowledges support from Health Data Research UK. Drs Adithi Shetty and Unnikrishnan acknowledge support given by Kasturba Medical College, Mangalore, Manipal Academy of Higher Education. Dr Pavanchand H. Shetty acknowledges Manipal Academy of Higher Education for their research support. Dr Diego Augusto Santos Silva was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil Finance Code 001 and is supported in part by CNPq (302028/2018-8). Dr Zhu acknowledges the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas grant RP210042

Bringing children and older people together through food: The promotion of intergenerational relationships across preschool, school and care home settings

Purpose: This paper aims to explore how food-focused social activities are a route for promoting intergenerational relationships, well-being and dietary benefits among residents in care homes and children in preschool/schools. Design/methodology/approach: Using a case study methodology, this study undertook staff-focused research on a 26-month UK programme in 12 partnership clusters, involving a range of growing, cooking, eating and community activities. Findings: Staff reported benefits for older people, including improved mood, surfacing positive memories, new personal connections and relief from feelings of boredom and loneliness. Children were reported to develop in-depth relationships, greater empathy and overcame negative preconceptions. Food-based activities enabled all parties to express caring and nurturing in tangible and often non-verbal ways. Originality/value: Food-based activities appear to have specific material and emotive characteristics that resonate with the intergenerational interests of older people and children. Using mainly in-house resources, this study showed that it is feasible to generate novel food-based practices between children’s education and care home sectors. A “test-and-learn” programme model is recommended, given sensitivities and complexity associated with food-based activities and the limited organizational capacity of care home and early education service providers

Supplemental material for Nostalgia as a psychological resource for people with dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence of effectiveness from experimental studies

<p>Supplemental material for Nostalgia as a psychological resource for people with dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence of effectiveness from experimental studies by Sanda Umar Ismail, Richard Cheston, Gary Christopher and Jane Meyrick in Dementia</p

Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life Years for 29 Cancer Groups From 2010 to 2019: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Importance: The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2019 (GBD 2019) provided systematic estimates of incidence, morbidity, and mortality to inform local and international efforts toward reducing cancer burden. Objective: To estimate cancer burden and trends globally for 204 countries and territories and by Sociodemographic Index (SDI) quintiles from 2010 to 2019. Evidence Review: The GBD 2019 estimation methods were used to describe cancer incidence, mortality, years lived with disability, years of life lost, and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 2019 and over the past decade. Estimates are also provided by quintiles of the SDI, a composite measure of educational attainment, income per capita, and total fertility rate for those younger than 25 years. Estimates include 95% uncertainty intervals (UIs). Findings: In 2019, there were an estimated 23.6 million (95% UI, 22.2-24.9 million) new cancer cases (17.2 million when excluding nonmelanoma skin cancer) and 10.0 million (95% UI, 9.36-10.6 million) cancer deaths globally, with an estimated 250 million (235-264 million) DALYs due to cancer. Since 2010, these represented a 26.3% (95% UI, 20.3%-32.3%) increase in new cases, a 20.9% (95% UI, 14.2%-27.6%) increase in deaths, and a 16.0% (95% UI, 9.3%-22.8%) increase in DALYs. Among 22 groups of diseases and injuries in the GBD 2019 study, cancer was second only to cardiovascular diseases for the number of deaths, years of life lost, and DALYs globally in 2019. Cancer burden differed across SDI quintiles. The proportion of years lived with disability that contributed to DALYs increased with SDI, ranging from 1.4% (1.1%-1.8%) in the low SDI quintile to 5.7% (4.2%-7.1%) in the high SDI quintile. While the high SDI quintile had the highest number of new cases in 2019, the middle SDI quintile had the highest number of cancer deaths and DALYs. From 2010 to 2019, the largest percentage increase in the numbers of cases and deaths occurred in the low and low-middle SDI quintiles. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this systematic analysis suggest that the global burden of cancer is substantial and growing, with burden differing by SDI. These results provide comprehensive and comparable estimates that can potentially inform efforts toward equitable cancer control around the world

Prospective observational cohort study on grading the severity of postoperative complications in global surgery research

Background The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high- (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7-day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs. Results A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59). Conclusion Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally

The surgical safety checklist and patient outcomes after surgery: a prospective observational cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis

© 2017 British Journal of Anaesthesia Background: The surgical safety checklist is widely used to improve the quality of perioperative care. However, clinicians continue to debate the clinical effectiveness of this tool. Methods: Prospective analysis of data from the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), an international observational study of elective in-patient surgery, accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature. The exposure was surgical safety checklist use. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. In the ISOS cohort, a multivariable multi-level generalized linear model was used to test associations. To further contextualise these findings, we included the results from the ISOS cohort in a meta-analysis. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: We included 44 814 patients from 497 hospitals in 27 countries in the ISOS analysis. There were 40 245 (89.8%) patients exposed to the checklist, whilst 7508 (16.8%) sustained ≥1 postoperative complications and 207 (0.5%) died before hospital discharge. Checklist exposure was associated with reduced mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.49 (0.32–0.77); P\u3c0.01], but no difference in complication rates [OR 1.02 (0.88–1.19); P=0.75]. In a systematic review, we screened 3732 records and identified 11 eligible studies of 453 292 patients including the ISOS cohort. Checklist exposure was associated with both reduced postoperative mortality [OR 0.75 (0.62–0.92); P\u3c0.01; I2=87%] and reduced complication rates [OR 0.73 (0.61–0.88); P\u3c0.01; I2=89%). Conclusions: Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine