Effects of preventive home visits on health-related quality-of-life and mortality in home-dwelling older adults

Figures & data

Figure 1. Flowchart of study participant selection and randomisation.

Table 1. Components of the home visit intervention, specific instructions given, and the number of participants who received specific instructions in addition to general information.

Individual delivering the home visit	Intervention	Duration of visit	Tailored guidance	Participants receiving tailored guidance (n)
Nurse	Structured assessment: RAI-HC^a, MMSE^b, MNA^c, Barthel scale [38], GDS-15^d, and IADL^e Measurements: Blood pressure and blood glucose levels Information: health and social services offered by the municipality, and local volunteer and third-party organizations	1.0–1.5 h	Contact family doctor, health nurse, service needs assessment, physiotherapy, memory clinic, exercise group, or third-party service provider	n = 104
Physiotherapist	Structured assessment: barriers of mobility, FROP-Com^f screen, and home safety assessment Measurements: a hand grip strength test (Jamar) and CS-5^g Information: physical activity recommendations, physiotherapy services of the municipality for individuals and groups, and services offered by local volunteer and third-party organizations	1.0–1.5 h	Personalized guidance for physical training, instructions to register for group training, and instructions to book a personal physiotherapist appointment	personalized training instructions, n = 211 physiotherapy group, n = 3 physiotherapist appointment, n = 2
Social worker	Structured assessment: social functioning, ADL^h, IADL^e, and service needs Information: financial and other benefits for older people, social services provided by the municipality, services and benefits from SII^i, and local volunteer and third-party organizations	0.5–1.5 h	Instructions/help to contact case management, day activities for older adults, home delivered services, and applying for financial benefits	n = 76

^a InterRAI Home Care Assessment System [18,19].

^b Mini Mental State Examination for Cognition [20].

^c Mini Nutritional Assessment [17,18].

^d Geriatric depression scale 15-item short form [18,21].

^e Instrumental activities of daily living, Lawton [18,22].

^f Falls Risk for Older People in the Community [18,23,24].

^g Five-repetition chair stand test [25].

^h Activities of daily living (tailored Community Health Assessment (CHA) RAI [26].

ⁱ The Finnish Social Insurance Institution.

Table 2. Characteristics of participants at baseline.

	Intervention (n = 211)	Control (n = 211)	p value^f
Age, mean (SD^a)	80.8 (4.3)	81.3 (4.3)	0.20
Male, n (%)	73 (35)	75 (35)	0.84
Less than 9 years of education completed	96 (47)	99 (50)	0.49
Cohabiting	110 (52)	105 (51)	0.70
Satisfaction with life, n (%):			0.55
Satisfied	187 (90)	185 (89)
Unsatisfied	11 (6)	12 (5)
Cannot say	9 (4)	12 (6)
HRQoL^b: 15D^c score (SD)	0.82 (0.11)	0.82 (0.11)	0.87
BMI^d (SD)	26.5 (5.0)	26.5 (4.9)	0.62
Current or ex-smoker, n (%)	45 (22)	42 (20)	0.72
Fallen during last 6 months, n (%)	68 (32)	54 (26)	0.14
Exercise ≥30 min at least once per week, n (%)	149 (71)	145 (71)	0.88
Uses a walker, n (%)	21 (10)	35 (17)	0.05
Subjective well-being good to moderate	176 (83)	170 (81)	0.45
15D usual activities 1–2	173 (82)	172 (82)	0.90
Charlson comorbidity index^e (SD)	1.29 (1.3)	1.44 (1.5)	0.61
Prescription medications regularly taken	4.4 (2.6)	4.5 (2.9)	0.77

^a SD: standard deviation.

^b HRQoL: health-related quality-of-life.

^c Sintonen 2001 [14].

^d BMI: body mass index.

^e Charlson et al. 1987 [28].

^f Differences between groups tested using X² or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney test or permutation test for continuous variables.

Figure 2. Effects of the intervention on the change in health-related quality-of-life on a 15D scale during a two-year follow-up period.

Figure 3. Effects of the intervention on the dimensions of a 15D scale at the one-year time point.

Collin C, Wade DT, Davies S, et al. The Barthel ADL Index: a reliability study. Int Disabil Stud. 1988;10:61–63.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Version information on validated Finnish translations of the instruments used [Internet]. TOIMIA database, Finland; [cited 2018 March 6]. Available at: http://www.thl.fi/toimia/tietokanta/mittari/tulokset/

 Google Scholar

Hirdes JP, Ljunggren G, Morris JN, et al. Reliability of the interRAI suite of assessment instruments: a 12-country study of an integrated health information system. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008;8:277-6963–278-277.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Folstein MF, Folstein SE, McHugh PR. "Mini-mental state". A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12:189–198.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Guigoz Y, Lauque S, Vellas BJ. Identifying the elderly at risk for malnutrition. The Mini Nutritional Assessment. Clin Geriatr Med. 2002;18:737–757.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

de Craen AJ, Heeren TJ, Gussekloo J. Accuracy of the 15-item geriatric depression scale (GDS-15) in a community sample of the oldest old. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2003;18:63–66.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Lawton MP, Brody EM. Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist. 1969;9:179–186.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

FROP-Com Screen, validated Finnish version [Internet]. Finnish national institute for health and welfare; [cited 2018 March 6]. Available at: https://thl.fi/documents/567861/598779/Lyhyt_kaatumisvaaran_arviointi_FROP-Com.pdf.

 Google Scholar

Russell MA, Hill KD, Day LM, et al. Development of the Falls Risk for Older People in the Community (FROP-Com) screening tool. Age Ageing. 2008;38:40–46.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bohannon RW. Reference values for the five-repetition sit-to-stand test: a descriptive meta-analysis of data from elders. Percept Mot Skills. 2006;103:215–222.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Community Health Assessment [Internet]. InterRAI; [cited 2018 March 6]. Available at: http://www.interrai.org/community-health.html.

 Google Scholar

Sintonen H. The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: properties and applications. Ann Med. 2001;33:328–336.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, et al. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–383.

 PubMedGoogle Scholar