A non-randomised controlled study to assess the effectiveness of a new proactive multidisciplinary care intervention for older people living with frailty.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Murtagh FEM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9813451 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A non-randomised controlled study to assess the effectiveness of a new proactive multidisciplinary care intervention for older people living with frailty.
Murtagh Fliss E M FEM Okoeki Mabel M Ukoha-Kalu Blessing Onyinye BO Khamis Assem A Clark Joseph J Boland Jason W JW Pask Sophie S Nwulu Ugochinyere U Elliott-Button Helene H Folwell Anna A Harman Daniel D Johnson Miriam J MJ
BMC geriatrics 20230105 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundCurrently, primary care for frail older people is reactive, time consuming and does not meet patients' needs. A transition is needed towards proactive and integrated care, so that daily functioning and a good quality of life can be preserved. To work towards these goals, two interventions were developed to enhance the care of frail older patients in general practice: a screening and monitoring intervention using routine healthcare data (U-PRIM) and a nurse-led multidisciplinary intervention program (U-CARE). The U-PROFIT trial was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions. The aim of this paper is to describe the U-PROFIT trial design and to discuss methodological issues and challenges.Methods/designThe effectiveness of U-PRIM and U-CARE is being tested in a three-armed, cluster randomized trial in 58 general practices in the Netherlands, with approximately 5000 elderly individuals expected to participate. The primary outcome is the effect on activities of daily living as measured with the Katz ADL index. Secondary outcomes are quality of life, mortality, nursing home admission, emergency department and out-of-hours General Practice (GP), surgery visits, and caregiver burden.DiscussionIn a large, pragmatic trial conducted in daily clinical practice with frail older patients, several challenges and methodological issues will occur. Recruitment and retention of patients and feasibility of the interventions are important issues. To enable broad generalizability of results, careful choices of the design and outcome measures are required. Taking this into account, the U-PROFIT trial aims to provide robust evidence for a structured and integrated approach to provide care for frail older people in primary care.Trial registrationNTR2288.
| S-EPMC3373372 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionFrailty is a major concern due to its costly and widespread consequences, yet evidence of effective interventions to delay or reduce frailty is lacking. Our previous study found that a multifactorial intervention was feasible and effective in reducing frailty in older people who were already frail. Identifying and treating people in the pre-frail state may be an effective means to prevent or delay frailty. This study describes a randomised controlled trial that aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifactorial intervention on development of frailty in older people who are pre-frail.Methods and analysisA single centre randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding and intention-to-treat analysis. Two hundred and thirty people aged above 70 who meet the Cardiovascular Health Study frailty criteria for pre-frailty, reside in the community and are without severe cognitive impairment will be recruited. Participants will be randomised to receive a multifactorial intervention or usual care. The intervention group will receive a 12-month interdisciplinary intervention targeting identified characteristics of frailty and problems identified during geriatric assessment. Participants will be followed for a 12-month period. Primary outcome measures will be degree of frailty measured by the number of Cardiovascular Health Study frailty criteria present, and mobility measured with the Short Physical Performance Battery. Secondary outcomes will include measures of mobility, mood and use of health and community services.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the Northern Sydney Local Health District Health Research Ethics Committee (1207-213M). The findings will be disseminated through scientific and professional conferences, and in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12613000043730.
| S-EPMC4322196 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract Purpose to support older people with several healthcare needs in sustaining adequate functioning and independence, more proactive approaches are needed. This purpose of this study is to summarise the (cost-) effectiveness of proactive, multidisciplinary, integrated care programmes for older people in Dutch primary care. Methods design individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of eight clinically controlled trials. Setting primary care sector. Interventions combination of (i) identification of older people with complex problems by means of screening, followed by (ii) a multidisciplinary integrated care programme for those identified. Main outcome activities of daily living, i.e. a change on modified Katz-15 scale between baseline and 1-year follow-up. Secondary outcomes quality of life (visual analogue scale 0–10), psychological (mental well-being scale Short Form Health Survey (SF)-36) and social well-being (single item, SF-36), quality-adjusted life years (Euroqol-5dimensions-3level (EQ-5D-3L)), healthcare utilisation and cost-effectiveness. Analysis intention-to-treat analysis, two-stage IPD and subgroup analysis based on patient and intervention characteristics. Results included were 8,678 participants: median age of 80.5 (interquartile range 75.3; 85.7) years; 5,496 (63.3%) women. On the modified Katz-15 scale, the pooled difference in change between the intervention and control group was ?0.01 (95% confidence interval ?0.10 to 0.08). No significant differences were found in the other patient outcomes or subgroup analyses. Compared to usual care, the probability of the intervention group to be cost-effective was less than 5%. Conclusion compared to usual care at 1-year follow-up, strategies for identification of frail older people in primary care combined with a proactive integrated care intervention are probably not (cost-) effective.
| S-EPMC6108387 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Backgroundolder people often experience complex problems. Because of multiple problems, care for older people in general practice needs to shift from a 'problem-based, disease-oriented' care aiming at improvement of outcomes per disease to a 'goal-oriented care', aiming at improvement of functioning and personal quality of life, integrating all healthcare providers. Feasibility and cost-effectiveness of this proactive and integrated way of working are not yet established.Designcluster randomised trial.Participantsall persons aged ≥75 in 59 general practices (30 intervention, 29 control), with a combination of problems, as identified with a structured postal questionnaire with 21 questions on four health domains.Interventionfor participants with problems on ≥3 domains, general practitioners (GPs) made an integrated care plan using a functional geriatric approach. Control practices: care as usual.Outcome measures(i) quality of life (QoL), (ii) activities of daily living, (iii) satisfaction with delivered health care and (iv) cost-effectiveness of the intervention at 1-year follow-up.Trial registrationNetherlands trial register, NTR1946.Resultsof the 11,476 registered eligible older persons, 7,285 (63%) participated in the screening. One thousand nine hundred and twenty-one (26%) had problems on ≥3 health domains. For 225 randomly chosen persons, a care plan was made. No beneficial effects were found on QoL, patients' functioning or healthcare use/costs. GPs experienced better overview of the care and stability, e.g. less unexpected demands, in the care.ConclusionsGPs prefer proactive integrated care. 'Horizontal' care using care plans for older people with complex problems can be a valuable tool in general practice. However, no direct beneficial effect was found for older persons.
| S-EPMC4711660 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Genome-wide DNA methylation profiling of blood samples from people living with HIV HIV-1 infection impacts biological ageing, and epigenetic clocks highlight epigenetic age acceleration in people with HIV. Despite evidence indicating sex differences in clinical, immunological, and virological measures, females have been underrepresented in most HIV epigenetic studies. Hence, we generated a more representative epigenetic dataset to examine sex differences in epigenetic ageing and relationships to clinical phenotypes.
2025-03-05 | GSE283506 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundFrailty is a well known and accepted term to clinicians working with older people. The study aim was to determine whether an intervention could reduce frailty and improve mobility.MethodsWe conducted a single center, randomized, controlled trial among older people who were frail in Sydney, Australia. One group received an intervention targeting the identified characteristics of frailty, whereas the comparison group received the usual health care and support services. Outcomes were assessed by raters masked to treatment allocation at 3 and 12 months after study entry. The primary outcomes were frailty as assessed by the Cardiovascular Health Study criteria, and mobility as assessed by the Short Physical Performance Battery. Secondary outcome measures included disability, depressive symptoms and health-related quality of life.ResultsA total of 216 participants (90%) completed the study. Overall, 68% of participants were women and the mean age was 83.3 years (standard deviation, 5.9). In the intention-to-treat analysis, the between-group difference in frailty was 14.7% at 12 months (95% confidence interval: 2.4%, 27.0%; P = 0.02). The score on the Short Physical Performance Battery, in which higher scores indicate better physical status, was stable in the intervention group and had declined in the control group; with the mean difference between groups being 1.44 (95% confidence interval, 0.80, 2.07; P <0.001) at 12 months. There were no major differences between the groups with respect to secondary outcomes. The few adverse events that occurred were exercise-associated musculoskeletal symptoms.ConclusionsFrailty and mobility disability can be successfully treated using an interdisciplinary multifaceted treatment program.Trial registrationAustralia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12608000250336.
| S-EPMC3751685 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo describe and define a concept of confidence in the context of older people living with frailty, which is important to the worldwide healthy-ageing agenda preventing decline in independence and well-being.DesignConcept analysis informed by Walker and Avant's eight-stage approach.MethodsElectronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL and PsychINFO) from 1994-2018 were searched. Published studies exploring confidence and excerpts of papers referencing older people, frailty and confidence informed the concept analysis. Extracted attributes informed model case and additional case development. Appraisal of antecedents, consequences and empirical referents informed the final concept's construction.ResultsThree overall defining attributes of confidence were identified in this concept analysis: physical, psychological and social. A central feature is personal control, influencing internal and external factors. These control factors can be enabling factors (positive factors) or dis-enabling factors (negative factors), affecting the frail older persons overall physical health and mental well-being.
| S-EPMC7113533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFollowing periods of acute ill-health and injury, older people are frequently assessed and provided with rehabilitation services. Healthcare practitioners are required to make nuanced decisions about which patients are likely to benefit from and respond to rehabilitation. The clinical currency in which these decisions are transacted is through the term "rehabilitation potential". The aim of this study was to explore information about rehabilitation potential in older people to inform the development of an evidence-based assessment tool.MethodsA systematic mapping review was completed to describe the extent of research and the concepts underpinning rehabilitation potential. We searched Medline, CINHAL, EMBASE, AMED, PsycINFO, PEDro, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ProQuest, Trip and EThOS from inception to December 2020. We included studies which focused on rehabilitation potential and/or assessing for rehabilitation interventions for older people with comorbidities in the hospital and community setting. Reviewer pairs independently screened articles and extracted data against the inclusion criteria. A descriptive narrative approach to analysis was taken.Results13,484 papers were identified and 49 included in the review. Rehabilitation potential was found to encompass two different but interrelated concepts of prognostication and outcome measurement. 1. Rehabilitation potential for prognostication involved the prediction of what could be achieved in programmes of rehabilitation. 2. Rehabilitation potential as an outcome measure retrospectively considered what had been achieved as a result of rehabilitation interventions. Assessments of rehabilitation potential included key domains which were largely assessed by members of the multi-disciplinary team at single time points. Limited evidence was identified which specifically considered rehabilitation potential amongst older people living with frailty.ConclusionsCurrent approaches to rehabilitation potential provide a snapshot of an individual's abilities and conditions which fail to capture the dynamic nature and fluctuations associated with frailty and rehabilitation. New approaches to measures and abilities over time are required which allow for the prognostication of outcomes and potential benefits of rehabilitation interventions for older people living with frailty.
| S-EPMC8496021 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesDizziness is common in older people. Physicians are often unable to identify a specific cause for dizziness in older people, even after an extensive diagnostic work-up. A prognosis-oriented approach, i.e. treating modifiable risk factors for an unfavourable course of dizziness, may reduce dizziness-related impairment in older people in primary care.DesignCluster randomized controlled trial.Setting45 primary care practices in The Netherlands.Participants168 participants aged ≥65y who consulted their general practitioner for dizziness and experienced significant dizziness-related impairment (Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) ≥30). Participants were part of to the intervention group (n = 83) or control group (n = 85), depending on whether they were enlisted in an intervention practice or in a control practice.InterventionsThe multifactorial intervention consisted of: medication adjustment in case of ≥3 prescribed fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) and/or stepped mental health care in case of anxiety disorder and/or depression and/or exercise therapy in case of impaired functional mobility. The intervention was compared to usual care.Outcome measuresThe primary outcome was dizziness-related impairment. Secondary outcomes were quality of life (QoL), dizziness frequency, fall frequency, anxiety and depression, use of FRIDs.ResultsIntention-to-treat analysis showed no significant intervention effect on dizziness-related impairment (DHI score difference -0.69 [95% CI -5.66;4.28]; p = 0.79). The intervention proved effective in reducing the number of FRIDs (FRID difference -0.48 [95% CI -0.89;-0.06]; p = 0.02). No significant intervention effects were found on other secondary outcomes. The uptake of and adherence to the interventions was significantly lower in patients eligible for ≥2 interventions compared to patients eligible for one intervention (p<0.001).ConclusionsThe multifactorial intervention for dizziness in older patients showed no significant intervention effect on most outcomes and adherence to the multifactorial intervention was low. Although multifactorial treatment for older dizzy people seems promising in theory, we question its feasibility in daily practice. Future research could focus on a sequential treatment for dizziness, e.g. measuring effectiveness of various evidence-based therapies in a stepwise approach.
| S-EPMC6178383 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe need to improve the acute care pathway to meet the care needs of older people living with frailty is a strategic priority for many healthcare systems. The optimal care model for this patient group is unclear.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to derive a taxonomy of acute care models for older people with acute medical illness and describe the outcomes used to assess their effectiveness. Care models providing time-limited episodes of care (up to 14 days) within 48 h of presentation to patients over the age of 65 with acute medical illness were included. Care models based in hospital and community settings were eligible. Searches were undertaken in Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane databases. Interventions were described and classified in detail using a modified version of the TIDIeR checklist for complex interventions. Outcomes were described and classified using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) taxonomy. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB2 and ROBINS-I.ResultsThe inclusion criteria were met by 103 articles. Four classes of acute care model were identified, acute-bed based care, hospital at home, emergency department in-reach and care home models. The field is dominated by small single centre randomised and non-randomised studies. Most studies were judged to be at risk of bias. A range of outcome measures were reported with little consistency between studies. Evidence of effectiveness was limited.ConclusionAcute care models for older people living with frailty are heterogenous. The clinical effectiveness of these models cannot be conclusively established from the available evidence.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration (CRD42021279131).
| S-EPMC10699071 | biostudies-literature