Effect of preventive primary care outreach on health related quality of life among older adults at risk of functional decline: randomised controlled trial

Jenny Ploeg, Kevin Brazil, Brian Hutchison, Janusz Kaczorowski, Dawn M Dalby, Charles H Goldsmith, William Furlong, Jenny Ploeg, Kevin Brazil, Brian Hutchison, Janusz Kaczorowski, Dawn M Dalby, Charles H Goldsmith, William Furlong

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the impact of a provider initiated primary care outreach intervention compared with usual care among older adults at risk of functional decline.

Design: Randomised controlled trial.

Setting: Patients enrolled with 35 family physicians in five primary care networks in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Participants: Patients were eligible if they were 75 years of age or older and were not receiving home care services. Of 3166 potentially eligible patients, 2662 (84%) completed the validated postal questionnaire used to determine risk of functional decline. Of 1724 patients who met the risk criteria, 769 (45%) agreed to participate and 719 were randomised.

Intervention: The 12 month intervention, provided by experienced home care nurses in 2004-6, consisted of a comprehensive initial assessment using the resident assessment instrument for home care; collaborative care planning with patients, their families, and family physicians; health promotion; and referral to community health and social support services.

Main outcome measures: Quality adjusted life years (QALYs), use and costs of health and social services, functional status, self rated health, and mortality.

Results: The mean difference in QALYs between intervention and control patients during the study period was not statistically significant (0.017, 95% confidence interval -0.022 to 0.056; P=0.388). The mean difference in overall cost of prescription drugs and services between the intervention and control groups was not statistically significant, (-$C165 ( pound107; euro118; $162), 95% confidence interval -$C16 545 to $C16 214; P=0.984). Changes over 12 months in functional status and self rated health were not significantly different between the intervention and control groups. Ten patients died in each group.

Conclusions: The results of this study do not support adoption of this preventive primary care intervention for this target population of high risk older adults. Trial registration Clinical trials NCT00134836.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: CHG was paid as a consultant to help in developing the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 quality of life measure. WF has a stock interest in Health Utilities, which distributes copyright Health Utilities Index instrumentation and provides methodological advice on the use of Health Utilities Index.

Figures

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/4787729/bin/ploj678391.f1_default.jpg
Flow diagram of trial. SPQ=Sherbrooke postal questionnaire. *Numbers refer to individual patients (for example, n=82 refers to 41 couples). †Two patients in each group died after 12 month visit but did not have 12 month assessment; their missing data were imputed in analysis

References

    1. Bergman H, Béland F, Perrault A. The global challenge of understanding and meeting the needs of the frail older population. Aging Clin Exp Res 2002;14:223-5.
    1. Coleman EA. Challenges of systems of care for frail older persons: the United States of America experience. Aging Clin Exp Res 2002;14:233-8.
    1. Byles JE. A thorough going over: evidence for health assessments for older persons. Aust N Z J Public Health 2000;24:117-23.
    1. Elkan R, Kendrick D, Dewey M, Hewitt M, Robinson J, Blair M, et al. Effectiveness of home based support for older people: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2001;323:1-9.
    1. Stuck AE, Siu AL, Wieland GD, Adamis J, Rubenstein LZ. Comprehensive geriatric assessment: a meta-analysis of controlled trials. Lancet 1993;342:1032-6.
    1. Markle-Reid M, Browne G, Weir R, Gafni A, Roberts J, Henderson SR. The effectiveness and efficiency of home-based nursing health promotion for older people: a review of the literature. Med Care Res Rev 2006;63:531-69.
    1. Stuck EA, Egger M, Hammer A, Minder CE, Beck JC. Home visits to prevent nursing home admission and functional decline in elderly people: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. JAMA 2002;287:1022-8.
    1. Van Haastregt JCM, Diederiks JPM, van Rossum E, de Witte LP, Crebolder HFJM. Effects of preventive home visits to elderly people living in the community: systematic review. BMJ 2000;320:754-8.
    1. Winograd CH. Targeting strategies: an overview of criteria and outcomes. JAGS 1991;39:25-35S.
    1. Rubenstein LZ, Goodwin M, Hadley E, Patten SK, Rempusheski VF, Reuben D, et al. Working group recommendations: targeting criteria for geriatric evaluation and management research. JAGS 1991;39:37-41S.
    1. Egger M. Commentary: when, where, and why do preventive home visits work? BMJ 2001;323:8-9.
    1. Ploeg J, Feightner J, Hutchison B, Patterson C, Sigouin C, Gauld M. Effectiveness of preventive primary care outreach interventions aimed at older people: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Can Fam Physician 2005;51:1244-5.
    1. Hébert R. Functional decline in old age. CMAJ 1997;157:1037-45.
    1. Hirdes JP, Naus PJ, Young JE. The use of preventive home visits among frail elderly persons: evidence from three European countries. Can J Aging 1994;13:499-509.
    1. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Evaluation of primary care reform pilots in Ontario phase 1—final report. 2001. .
    1. Hébert R, Bravo G, Korner-Bitensky N, Voyer L. Predictive validity of a postal questionnaire for screening community-dwelling elderly individuals at risk of functional decline. Age Ageing 1996;25:159-67.
    1. Rand Corporation. A million random digits with 100,000 normal deviates. Free Press, 1955.
    1. Morris JN, Bernabei R, Ikegami N, Gilgen R, Frijters D, Hirdes JP, et al. RAI-home care (RAI-HC) manual. Canadian version. 2nd ed. Canadian Institute for Health Information, 2002.
    1. Feeny D. The Health Utilities Index: a tool for assessing health benefits. Patient Reported Outcomes Newsletter 2005;34:2-6.
    1. Feeny D. Preference-based measures: utility and quality-adjusted life years. In: Fayers P, Hays R, eds. Assessing quality of life in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, 2005.
    1. Feeny D, Farris K, Côté I, Johnson JA, Tsuyuki RT, Eng K. A cohort study found the RAND-12 and Health Utilities Mark 3 demonstrated construct validity in high-risk primary care patients. J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58:138-41.
    1. Feeny D, Furlong W, Torrance GW, Goldsmith CH, Zhu Z, DePauw S, et al. Multiattribute and single-attribute utility functions for the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 system. Med Care 2002;40:113-28.
    1. Furlong WJ, Feeny DH, Torrance GW, Barr RD. The Health Utilities Index (HUI) system for assessing health-related quality of life in clinical studies. Ann Med 2001;33:375-84.
    1. Horsman J, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G. The Health Utilities Index (HUI®): concepts, measurement properties and applications. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:54.
    1. Torrance GW, Feeny D. Utilities and quality-adjusted life years. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1989;5:559-75.
    1. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Guidelines for the economic evaluation of health technologies: Canada. 3rd ed. CADTH, 2006 (available at ).
    1. Miller JD, Malthaner RA, Goldsmith CH, Goeree R, Higgins D, Cox G, et al. A randomized clinical trial of lung volume reduction surgery versus best medical care for patients with advanced emphysema: a two-year study from Canada. Ann Thorac Surg 2006;81:314-21.
    1. Raynauld JP, Torrance GW, Band PA, Goldsmith CH, Tugwell P, Walker V, et al. A prospective, randomized, pragmatic, health outcomes trial evaluating the incorporation of hylan G-F 20 into the treatment paradigm for patients with knee osteoarthritis (part 1 of 2): clinical results. Osteoarthritis Cart 2002;10:506-17.
    1. Vickrey BG, Mittman BS, Connor KI, Pearson ML, Penna RDD, Ganiats TG, et al. The effect of a disease management intervention on quality and outcomes of dementia care: a randomised controlled trial. Ann Intern Med 2006;145:713-26.
    1. Grootendorst P, Feeny D, Furlong W. Health Utilities Index Mark 3: evidence of construct validity for stroke and arthritis in a population health survey. Med Care 2000;38:290-9.
    1. Fryback DG, Dunham NC, Palta M, Hanmer J, Buechner J, Cherepanov D, et al. US norms for six generic health-related quality-of-life indexes from the National Health Measurement Study. Med Care 2007;45:1162-70.
    1. Wexler DJ, Grant RW, Wittenberg E, Bosch JL, Cagliero E, Delahanty L, et al. Correlates of health-related quality of life in type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia 2006;49:1489-97.
    1. Browne G, Gafni A, Roberts J, Whittaker S, Wong M, Prica M. The health and social service utilization survey 2001 for the System-Linked Research Unit (SLRU) on health and social service utilization. McMaster University, 2001.
    1. Duke University Centre for the Study of Aging and Human Development. Multidimensional functional assessment—the OARS methodology: a manual. 2nd ed. Duke University, 1978.
    1. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473-81.
    1. Ware JE Jr. SF-36 Health Survey: manual and interpretation guide. Health Institute, New England Medical Centre, 1993.
    1. Dupont WD, Plummer WD Jr. Power and sample size calculations: a review and computer program. Control Clin Trials 1990;11:116-28.
    1. Browne G, Gafni A, Roberts J, Whittaker S, Wong M, Prica M. Approach to the measurement of costs (expenditures) when evaluating health and social programmes: the health and social service utilization survey 2001 for the System-Linked Research Unit (SLRU) on health and social service utilization. Working paper 01-4. McMaster University, 2001.
    1. Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Ontario drug benefit formulary/comparative drug index no 39. Publications Ontario, 2005.
    1. SAS Institute. Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and Kuiper test. SAS 9.2 documentation. SAS Institute, 2008.
    1. Donner A, Klar N. Design and analysis of cluster randomization trials in health research. Arnold, 2000.
    1. Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical analysis with missing data. 2nd ed. Wiley, 2002.
    1. Dalby DM, Sellors JW, Fraser FD, Fraser C, van Ineveld C, Howard M. Effect of preventive home visits by a nurse on the outcomes of frail elderly people in the community: a randomized controlled trial. CMAJ 2000;162:497-500.
    1. Hall N, De Beck P, Johnson D, Mackinnon K, Gutman G, Glick N. Randomized trial of a health promotion program for frail elders. Can J Aging 1992;11:72-91.
    1. Hébert R, Robichaud L, Roy P, Bravo G, Voyer L. Efficacy of a nurse-led mulidimensional preventive programme for older people at risk of functional decline: a randomized controlled trial. Age Ageing 2001;30:147-53.
    1. Hay WI, van Ineveld C, Browne G, Roberts J, Bell B, Mills M, et al. Prospective care of elderly patients in family practice: is screening effective? Can Fam Physician 1998;44:2677-87.
    1. Bouman A, van Rossum E, Nelemans P, Kempen GIJM, Knipschild P. Effects of intensive home visiting programs for older people with poor health status: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res 2008;8:74.
    1. Tu K, Cauch-Dudek K, Chen Z. Comparison of primary care physician payment models in the management of hypertension. Can Fam Physician 2009;55:719-27.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe