The CONSORT-EHEALTH checklist is intended for authors of randomized trials evaluating web-based and Internet-based applications/interventions, including mobile interventions, electronic games (incl multiplayer games), social media, certain telehealth applications, and other interactive and/or networked electronic applications. Some of the items (e.g. all subitems under item 5 -description of the intervention) may also be applicable for other study designs.The goal of the CONSORT EHEALTH checklist and guideline is to be a) a guide for reporting for authors of RCTs, b) to form a basis for appraisal of an ehealth trial (in terms of validity) CONSORT-EHEALTH items/subitems are MANDATORY reporting items for studies published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research and other journals / scientific societies endorsing the checklist.Items numbered 1., 2., 3., 4a., 4b etc are original CONSORT or CONSORT-NPT (nonpharmacologic treatment) items. Items with Roman numerals (i., ii, iii, iv etc.) are CONSORT-EHEALTH extensions/clarifications.As the CONSORT-EHEALTH checklist is still considered in a formative stage, we would ask that you also RATE ON A SCALE OF 1-5 how important/useful you feel each item is FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE CHECKLIST and reporting guideline (optional).

No abstract

No abstract

Background Comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) interventions can improve functional ability and reduce mortality in older adults, but the effectiveness of CGA intervention on the quality of life, caregiver burden, and length of hospital stay remains unclear. The study aimed to determine the effectiveness of CGA intervention on the quality of life, length of hospital stay, and caregiver burden in older adults by conducting meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods A literature search in PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library was conducted for papers published before February 29, 2020, based on inclusion criteria. Standardised mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) was calculated using the random-effects model. Subgroup analyses, sensitivity analyses, and publication bias analyses were also conducted. Results A total of 28 RCTs were included. Overall, the intervention components common in different CGA intervention models were interdisciplinary assessments and team meetings. Meta-analyses showed that CGA interventions improved the quality of life of older people (SMD = 0.12; 95% CI = 0.03 to 0.21; P = 0.009) compared to usual care, and subgroup analyses showed that CGA interventions improved the quality of life only in participants’ age > 80 years and at follow-up ≤3 months. The change value of quality of life in the CGA intervention group was better than that in the usual care group on six dimensions of the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey questionnaire (SF-36). Also, compared to usual care, the CGA intervention reduced the caregiver burden (SMD = − 0.56; 95% CI = − 0.97 to − 0.15, P = 0.007), but had no significant effect on the length of hospital stay. Conclusions CGA intervention was effective in improving the quality of life and reducing caregiver burden, but did not affect the length of hospital stay. It is recommended that future studies apply the SF-36 to evaluate the impact of CGA interventions on the quality of life and provide supportive strategies for caregivers as an essential part of the CGA intervention, to find additional benefits of CGA interventions.

Objective: To understand the perceptions and experiences of older patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) regarding shared decision-making in pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). Design: A qualitative study using single, semi-structured interviews, and thematic analysis. Setting: Face-to-face interviews were conducted in the Jiangnan University, in hospital and in patients’ homes. Participants: Twenty-two older patients with COPD and 29 HCPs. Methods: An initial codebook and semi-structured interview guide were developed based on the shared decision-making 3-circle conceptual model. Thematic analysis was used to analyze data. Results: The study identified 10 themes that describe the perceptions and experiences of patients and HCPs involved in PR decision-making: (1) patients’ confidence, (2) patients’ perceptions of the cost-benefit of decisions, (3) patients’ perceived stress about the consequences of decision-making, (4) HCPs’ perceived stress on shared decision-making, (5) cognitive biases of patients toward illness and rehabilitation, (6) shared decision-making as a knowledge gap, (7) the knowledge gap between patients and HCPs, (8) authority effect, (9) family support, (10) human resources. These themes were then divided into three groups according to their characteristics: (1) the feelings of the participants, (2) knowledge barriers, and (3) support from the social system. Conclusion: Patients and HCPs described their negative perceptions and experiences of participating in decision-making in PR. The implementation of shared decision-making in PR is currently limited; therefore, health education for patients and families should be strengthened and a training system for HCPs in shared decision-making should be established.