Sarah Anne Kelly

Effect on Caries of Restricting Sugars Intake Systematic Review to Inform WHO Guidelines

A systematic review of studies in humans was conducted to update evidence on the association between the amount of sugars intake and dental caries and on the effect of restricting sugars intake to < 10% and < 5% energy (E) on caries to inform the updating of World Health Organization guidelines on sugars consumption. Data sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, and South African Department of Health. Eligible studies reported the absolute amount of sugars and dental caries, measured as prevalence, incidence, or severity. The review was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement, and the evidence was assessed according to GRADE Working Group guidelines. From 5,990 papers identified, 55 studies were eligible – 3 intervention, 8 cohort, 20 population, and 24 cross-sectional. Data variability limited meta-analysis. Of the studies, 42 out of 50 of those in children and 5 out of 5 in adults reported at least one positive association between sugars and caries. There is evidence of moderate quality showing that caries is lower when free-sugars intake is < 10% E. With the < 5% E cut-off, a significant relationship was observed, but the evidence was judged to be of very low quality. The findings are relevant to minimizing caries risk throughout the life course.

Barriers and Facilitators to the Uptake and Maintenance of Healthy Behaviours by People at Mid-Life: A Rapid Systematic Review.

Background With an ageing population, there is an increasing societal impact of ill health in later life. People who adopt healthy behaviours are more likely to age successfully. To engage people in health promotion initiatives in mid-life, a good understanding is needed of why people do not undertake healthy behaviours or engage in unhealthy ones. Methods Searches were conducted to identify systematic reviews and qualitative or longitudinal cohort studies that reported mid-life barriers and facilitators to healthy behaviours. Mid-life ranged from 40 to 64 years, but younger adults in disadvantaged or minority groups were also eligible to reflect potential earlier disease onset. Two reviewers independently conducted reference screening and study inclusion. Included studies were assessed for quality. Barriers and facilitators were identified and synthesised into broader themes to allow comparisons across behavioural risks. Findings From 16,426 titles reviewed, 28 qualitative studies, 11 longitudinal cohort studies and 46 systematic reviews were included. Evidence was found relating to uptake and maintenance of physical activity, diet and eating behaviours, smoking, alcohol, eye care, and other health promoting behaviours and grouped into six themes: health and quality of life, sociocultural factors, the physical environment, access, psychological factors, evidence relating to health inequalities. Most of the available evidence was from developed countries. Barriers that recur across different health behaviours include lack of time (due to family, household and occupational responsibilities), access issues (to transport, facilities and resources), financial costs, entrenched attitudes and behaviours, restrictions in the physical environment, low socioeconomic status, lack of knowledge. Facilitators include a focus on enjoyment, health benefits including healthy ageing, social support, clear messages, and integration of behaviours into lifestyle. Specific issues relating to population and culture were identified relating to health inequalities. Conclusions The barriers and facilitators identified can inform the design of tailored interventions for people in mid-life.

Behavioural Risk Factors in Mid-Life Associated with Successful Ageing, Disability, Dementia and Frailty in Later Life: A Rapid Systematic Review

Background Smoking, alcohol consumption, poor diet and low levels of physical activity significantly contribute to the burden of illness in developed countries. Whilst the links between specific and multiple risk behaviours and individual chronic conditions are well documented, the impact of these behaviours in mid-life across a range of later life outcomes has yet to be comprehensively assessed. This review aimed to provide an overview of behavioural risk factors in mid-life that are associated with successful ageing and the primary prevention or delay of disability, dementia, frailty and non-communicable chronic conditions. Methods A literature search was conducted to identify cohort studies published in English since 2000 up to Dec 2014. Multivariate analyses and a minimum follow-up of five years were required for inclusion. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts and papers independently. Studies were assessed for quality. Evidence was synthesised by mid-life behavioural risk for a range of late life outcomes. Findings This search located 10,338 individual references, of which 164 are included in this review. Follow-up data ranged from five years to 36 years. Outcomes include dementia, frailty, disability and cardiovascular disease. There is consistent evidence of beneficial associations between mid-life physical activity, healthy ageing and disease outcomes. Across all populations studied there is consistent evidence that mid-life smoking has a detrimental effect on health. Evidence specific to alcohol consumption was mixed. Limited, but supportive, evidence was available relating specifically to mid-life diet, leisure and social activities or health inequalities. Conclusions There is consistent evidence of associations between mid-life behaviours and a range of late life outcomes. The promotion of physical activity, healthy diet and smoking cessation in all mid-life populations should be encouraged for successful ageing and the prevention of disability and chronic disease.

Physical Activity in Community Dwelling Older People: A Systematic Review of Reviews of Interventions and Context

Background The promotion and maintenance of higher physical activity (PA) levels in the older population is an imperative for cognitive and healthy ageing but it is unclear what approaches are best suited to achieve this for the increasing number of older people living in the community. Effective policies should be informed by robust, multi-disciplinary and multi-dimensional evidence, which not only seeks what works, but in ‘what context? In addition to evidence on the efficacy and effectiveness of PA for maintaining cognitive health, social contexts such as ‘how do we actually get older people to partake in PA?’ and ‘how do we sustain that activity long-term?’ also need highlighting. This review is part of a comprehensive evidence synthesis of preventive interventions in older age, with a focus on healthy behaviours to identify evidence gaps and inform policy relating to ageing well and cognitive health. An overview of systematic reviews of PA was conducted to explore three topics: (1) PA efficacy or effectiveness for primary prevention of cognitive decline in 55+; (2) Interventions efficacious or effective for increasing PA uptake and maintenance in 55+; (3) barriers and facilitators to PA in 55+. Methods Multiple databases were searched for studies in English from OECD countries between 2000 and 2016. Quality of included reviews in questions (1) and (2) were assessed using AMSTAR. Review protocols were registered on PROSPERO (CRD42014015554, 42014015584, CRD42014015557) and reviews follow PRISMA guideline. Findings Overall, 40 systematic reviews were included. Question 1 (n = 14). 8,360 participants. Evidence suggests that PA confer mild positive effects on cognition in older adults with and without previous cognitive impairment. However, there is insufficient evidence of a dose-response relationship. Evidence on the effects of PA on delay of dementia onset is inconclusive. Question 2 (n = 17). 79,650 participants. Evidence supports the effectiveness of a variety of interventions, including group delivered, centre-based and cognitive approaches on short-term uptake of PA behaviour. Question 3 (n = 9). 22,413 participants. Barriers include health status, previous PA habits and experiences, and cultural sensitivity, while facilitators include enjoyable activities and convenient scheduling. Conclusion PA can offer small benefits to brain health, but evidence on how much activity is required to produce this effect is lacking. Evidence on the effectiveness of PA for preventing dementia and cognitive decline is lacking. Behavioural (walking, exercise) and cognitive (counselling and motivational interviews) interventions are effective for short-term uptake of physical activity in older people. In order to maintain long-term participation in PA, individualised interventions modelled using behavioural theories may be required. Public health messages should be aimed at promoting acceptable levels of PA above normal daily activities in older people. Policy and strategies aimed at increasing PA in older people should be encouraged while considering barriers and facilitators to behaviour change.

Dementia priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance: using patient and public involvement and the evidence base to inform the research agenda

Background: the James Lind Alliance (JLA) created an approach to elicit the views of those under-represented in research priority exercises. Building on this, the JLA Dementia Priority Setting Partnership was set up as an independent and evidence-based project to identify and prioritise unanswered questions (‘uncertainties) about prevention, diagnosis, treatment and care relating to dementia. Methods: a survey was widely disseminated to stakeholders with an interest in the needs of the older population. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes from the large amount of questions collected from which research questions were developed using PICO framework (Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome). Each question was checked against an extensive evidence base of high-quality systematic reviews to verify whether they were true uncertainties. Findings: one thousand five hundred and sixty-three questionnaires were received, from people with dementia, carers/relatives, and health and care professionals; 85 uncertainties were identified from other sources. Questions were refined and formatted iteratively into 146 unique uncertainties. An interim prioritisation process involving diverse organisations identified the top 25 ranked questions. At a final face-to-face prioritisation workshop, 18 people representing the above constituencies arrived by consensus at the top 10 priority questions. The impact of patient and public involvement on the priorities is discussed. Interpretation: the long (146 questions) and top 10 lists of dementia research priorities provide a focus for researchers, funders and commissioners. They highlight a need for more research into care for people with dementia and carers, and a need for high-quality effectiveness trials in all aspects of dementia research.

Attitudes and preferences towards screening for dementia: a systematic review of the literature

BackgroundPopulation screening might provide a mechanism to enable early detection of dementia. Yet the potential benefits, harms or acceptability of such a large-scale intervention are not well understood. This research aims to examine the attitudes and preferences of the general public, health care professionals, people with dementia and their carers towards population screening for dementia.MethodsA systematic review of the international literature was undertaken. A search of fifteen bibliographic databases was conducted (up to 12 July 2012; no language restriction) using terms related to dementia, screening, specific screening tools, case finding, and attitudes and preferences; genetic screening and biomarkers were excluded. All study designs were included except opinion-based papers. Included papers were doubly quality assessed and thematically analysed using NVivo.Results29,910 papers were identified of which 29 met the inclusion criteria. We identified seventeen themes relating to the 3 phases of the screening process (pre-, in- and post-screen) – none emerged as more of a facilitator than a barrier to the acceptance of dementia screening. Seven themes emerged in relation to the patient, carer and general population: existing health state; lifestyle and life view; awareness of dementia; role of clinician; communication; benefit; and role of the family. Ten themes emerged in relation to the clinician and healthcare professional: patient’s existing health and comorbidities; awareness of dementia; confidence; duration of patient contact; suitability of screening tool; cost; disclosure; time; treatment and prognosis; and stigma.ConclusionsAs for all screening programmes, screening for dementia raises complex issues around preference and choice for clinicians and the public, and it is unclear what specific factors promote or reduce screening acceptance the most. Overall, the level of evidence is low, few large scale studies have been undertaken and none were conducted in representative samples, all affecting the generalizability of identified themes across healthcare contexts. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that population screening for dementia may not be acceptable to either the general public or health care professionals, and highlight where focused efforts are needed to gain insights into dementia specific issues.

Interventions to prevent and reduce excessive alcohol consumption in older people: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract Background harmful alcohol consumption is reported to be increasing in older people. To intervene and reduce associated risks, evidence currently available needs to be identified. Methods two systematic reviews in older populations (55+ years): (1) Interventions to prevent or reduce excessive alcohol consumption; (2) Interventions as (1) also reporting cognitive and dementia outcomes. Comprehensive database searches from 2000 to November 2016 for studies in English, from OECD countries. Alcohol dependence treatment excluded. Data were synthesised narratively and using meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using NICE methodology. Reviews are reported according to PRISMA. Results thirteen studies were identified, but none with cognition or dementia outcomes. Three related to primary prevention; 10 targeted harmful or hazardous older drinkers. A complex range of interventions, intensity and delivery was found. There was an overall intervention effect for 3- and 6-month outcomes combined (8 studies; 3,591 participants; pooled standard mean difference (SMD) −0.18 (95% CI −0.28, −0.07) and 12 months (6 studies; 2,788 participants SMD −0.16 (95% CI −0.32, −0.01) but risk of bias for most studies was unclear with significant heterogeneity. Limited evidence (three studies) suggested more intensive interventions with personalised feedback, physician advice, educational materials, follow-up could be most effective. However, simple interventions including brief interventions, leaflets, alcohol assessments with advice to reduce drinking could also have a positive effect. Conclusions alcohol interventions in older people may be effective but studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. Evidence gaps include primary prevention, cost-effectiveness, impact on cognitive and dementia outcomes.

Whole grain cereals for the primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUNDnThere is evidence from observational studies that whole grains can have a beneficial effect on risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Earlier versions of this review found mainly short-term intervention studies. There are now longer-term randomised controlled trials (RCTs) available. This is an update and expansion of the original review conducted in 2007.nnnOBJECTIVESnThe aim of this systematic review was to assess the effect of whole grain foods or diets on total mortality, cardiovascular events, and cardiovascular risk factors (blood lipids, blood pressure) in healthy people or people who have established cardiovascular disease or related risk factors, using all eligible RCTs.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe searched CENTRAL (Issue 8, 2016) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1946 to 31 August 2016), Embase (1980 to week 35 2016), and CINAHL Plus (1937 to 31 August 2016) on 31 August 2016. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov on 5 July 2017 and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) on 6 July 2017. We checked reference lists of relevant articles and applied no language restrictions.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnWe selected RCTs assessing the effects of whole grain foods or diets containing whole grains compared to foods or diets with a similar composition, over a minimum of 12 weeks, on cardiovascular disease and related risk factors. Eligible for inclusion were healthy adults, those at increased risk of CVD, or those previously diagnosed with CVD.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo review authors independently selected studies. Data were extracted and quality-checked by one review author and checked by a second review author. A second review author checked the analyses. We assessed treatment effect using mean difference in a fixed-effect model and heterogeneity using the I2 statistic and the Chi2 test of heterogeneity. We assessed the overall quality of evidence using GRADE with GRADEpro software.nnnMAIN RESULTSnWe included nine RCTs randomising a total of 1414 participants (age range 24 to 70; mean age 45 to 59, where reported) to whole grain versus lower whole grain or refined grain control groups. We found no studies that reported the effect of whole grain diets on total cardiovascular mortality or cardiovascular events (total myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, total stroke). All included studies reported the effect of whole grain diets on risk factors for cardiovascular disease including blood lipids and blood pressure. All studies were in primary prevention populations and had an unclear or high risk of bias, and no studies had an intervention duration greater than 16 weeks.Overall, we found no difference between whole grain and control groups for total cholesterol (mean difference 0.07, 95% confidence interval -0.07 to 0.21; 6 studies (7 comparisons); 722 participants; low-quality evidence).Using GRADE, we assessed the overall quality of the available evidence on cholesterol as low. Four studies were funded by independent national and government funding bodies, while the remaining studies reported funding or partial funding by organisations with commercial interests in cereals.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnThere is insufficient evidence from RCTs of an effect of whole grain diets on cardiovascular outcomes or on major CVD risk factors such as blood lipids and blood pressure. Trials were at unclear or high risk of bias with small sample sizes and relatively short-term interventions, and the overall quality of the evidence was low. There is a need for well-designed, adequately powered RCTs with longer durations assessing cardiovascular events as well as cardiovascular risk factors.

Midlife Approaches to Prevention of Ill Health in Later Life

This work was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), invitation to tender reference DDER 42013, and supported by the National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR) Ageing Well Programme.

Low glycaemic index diets for the prevention of cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUNDnThe glycaemic index (GI) is a physiological measure of the ability of a carbohydrate to affect blood glucose. Interest is growing in this area for the clinical management of people at risk of, or with, established cardiovascular disease. There is a need to review the current evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in this area. This is an update of the original review published in 2008.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo assess the effect of the dietary GI on total mortality, cardiovascular events, and cardiovascular risk factors (blood lipids, blood pressure) in healthy people or people who have established cardiovascular disease or related risk factors, using all eligible randomised controlled trials.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL in July 2016. We also checked reference lists of relevant articles. No language restrictions were applied.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnWe selected RCTs that assessed the effects of low GI diets compared to diets with a similar composition but a higher GI on cardiovascular disease and related risk factors. Minimum trial duration was 12 weeks. Participants included were healthy adults or those at increased risk of cardiovascular disease, or previously diagnosed with cardiovascular disease. Studies in people with diabetes mellitus were excluded.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnTwo reviewers independently screened and selected studies. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias, evaluated the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE, and extracted data following the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We contacted trial authors for additional information. Analyses were checked by a second reviewer. Continuous outcomes were synthesized using mean differences and adverse events were synthesized narratively.nnnMAIN RESULTSnTwenty-one RCTs were included, with a total of 2538 participants randomised to low GI intervention (1288) or high GI (1250). All 21 included studies reported the effect of low GI diets on risk factors for cardiovascular disease, including blood lipids and blood pressure.Twenty RCTs (18 of which were newly included in this version of the review) included primary prevention populations (healthy individuals or those at high risk of CVD, with mean age range from 19 to 69 years) and one RCT was in those diagnosed with pre-existing CVD (a secondary prevention population, with mean age 26.9 years). Most of the studies did not have an intervention duration of longer than six months. Difference in GI intake between comparison groups varied widely from 0.6 to 42.None of the included studies reported the effect of low GI dietary intake on cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular events such as fatal and nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, and stroke. The unclear risk of bias of most of the included studies makes overall interpretation of the data difficult. Only two of the included studies (38 participants) reported on adverse effects and did not observe any harms (low-quality evidence).nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnThere is currently no evidence available regarding the effect of low GI diets on cardiovascular disease events. Moreover, there is currently no convincing evidence that low GI diets have a clear beneficial effect on blood lipids or blood pressure parameters.