The ageing of the population has resulted in an increase in the demand for long-term care services for older people, but with limited resources, its challenges have also been highlighted. Although factors affecting the willingness of older people to engage with long-term care services have been widely reported, however, systematic review has not synthesised the evidence, and its associated factors remain unclear. This systematic review aims to study and synthesise the best available evidence on the potential factors related to the willingness of older people to engage with long-term care services. Eight electronic databases were comprehensively searched from inception to January 2021: the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Wanfang Database, China Knowledge Resource Integrated Database (CNKI), Weipu Database (VIP), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM). The original literatures were screened according to selection criteria. Two researchers used 11-item checklist recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to evaluate the quality of the included literatures. And the review used narrative synthesis to integrate factors related to the willingness of older people to engage with long-term care services. In total, 7794 studies were screened and 35 studies were included in this review. Among them, 23 studies were rated as moderate quality and 12 was high quality. Data synthesis identified that age, education, number of children, living arrangements, the relationship with children, primary caregivers, place of residence, social support, household income, medical insurance, activities of daily living ability and spiritual comfort should all be taken into account when establishing the appropriate long-term care service model or formulating relevant policies. However, many factors remain undetermined and require more rigorous original literature support. And multiple areas can be also considered in the future studies, especially psychological factors.

(1) Background: To review the associated factors of sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults. (2) Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and four Chinese electronic databases were searched for observational studies that reported the associated factors of sarcopenia from inception to August 2021. Two researchers independently selected the literature, evaluated their quality, and extracted relevant data. The pooled odds ratio (OR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for each associated factors of sarcopenia using random-effects/fixed-effects models. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plot and the Eggers test. We performed statistical analysis using Stata 15.0 software. (3) Results: A total of 68 studies comprising 98,502 cases were included. Sociodemographic associated factors of sarcopenia among community-dwelling older adults included age (OR = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.10-1.13), marital status (singled, divorced, or widowed) (OR = 1.57, 95% CI: 1.08-2.28), disability for activities of daily living (ADL) (OR = 1.49, 95% CI: 1.15-1.92), and underweight (OR = 3.78, 95% CI: 2.55-5.60). Behavioral associated factors included smoking (OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.10-1.21), physical inactivity (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.48-2.01), malnutrition/malnutrition risk (OR = 2.99, 95% CI: 2.40-3.72), long (OR = 2.30, 95% CI: 1.37-3.86) and short (OR = 3.32, 95% CI: 1.86-5.93) sleeping time, and living alone (OR = 1.55, 95% CI: 1.00-2.40). Disease-related associated factors included diabetes (OR = 1.40, 95% CI: 1.18-1.66), cognitive impairment (OR = 1.62, 95% CI: 1.05-2.51), heart diseases (OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.00-1.30), respiratory diseases (OR = 1.22, 95% CI: 1.09-1.36), osteopenia/osteoporosis (OR = 2.73, 95% CI: 1.63-4.57), osteoarthritis (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 1.23-1.44), depression (OR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.17-1.83), falls (OR = 1.28, 95% CI: 1.14-1.44), anorexia (OR = 1.50, 95% CI: 1.14-1.96), and anemia (OR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.06-1.82). However, it remained unknown whether gender (female: OR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.80-1.51; male: OR = 1.50, 95% CI: 0.96-2.34), overweight/obesity (OR = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.17-0.44), drinking (OR = 0.92, 95% CI: 0.84-1.01), hypertension (OR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.84-1.14), hyperlipidemia (OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 0.89-1.47), stroke (OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 0.69-4.17), cancer (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.85-0.92), pain (OR = 1.08, 95% CI: 0.98-1.20), liver disease (OR = 0.88, 95% CI: 0.85-0.91), and kidney disease (OR = 2.52, 95% CI: 0.19-33.30) were associated with sarcopenia. (4) Conclusions: There are many sociodemographic, behavioral, and disease-related associated factors of sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults. Our view provides evidence for the early identification of high-risk individuals and the development of relevant interventions to prevent sarcopenia in community-dwelling older adults.

The author should give careful consideration to the study eligibility criteria of systematic reviews (SRs) and follow it after review protocol development to reduce the possibility of manipulation of inclusion. Our aim was to investigate the prevalence of differences in study eligibility criteria between non-Cochrane SRs and their pre-registered protocols on PROSPERO, and determined what changes were involved as well as whether those changes were explained. We searched the protocols registered on PROSPERO platform in the year of 2018 and then selected these protocols which full-text have been published up to June 9, 2020. A random sample (n = 100) was included. Published full-texts were identified through the protocol's final publication citation. The following five key components of study eligibility criteria were compared: participants, intervention(s)/exposure(s), comparator(s), types of study design, and outcome(s). A total of 90% of included SRs exhibited differences in study eligibility criteria, and 59/90 altered in no less than two key components. Only one SR reported and explained the rationale for changes to the individual key component (the definition of exposure). The "Outcome(s)" exhibited the greatest variation, with changes in 61% of the SRs. The "Comparator(s)/control" exhibited the smallest variation, with changes in 20% of the SRs. Differences in study eligibility criteria between the non-Cochrane SRs and their protocols registered on PROSPERO were widespread but were seldom explained. Authors themselves, PROSPERO platform, as well as peer-review journals and their peer-reviewers should play a role in further improving transparency.