Economic Evaluation of a Reablement Training Program for Homecare Staff Targeting Sedentary Behavior in Community-Dwelling Older Adults Compared to Usual Care: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

References

• Harvey JA, Chastin SF, Skelton DA. How sedentary are older people? A systematic review of the amount of sedentary behavior. J Aging Phys Act. 2015;23(3):471–487. doi:10.1123/japa.2014-016425387160
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leung K-CW, Sum K-WR, Yang Y-J. Patterns of sedentary behavior among older adults in care facilities: a scoping review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(5):2710. doi:10.3390/ijerph1805271033800199
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kehler DS, Hay JL, Stammers AN, et al. A systematic review of the association between sedentary behaviors with frailty. Exp Gerontol. 2018;114:1–12. doi:10.1016/j.exger.2018.10.01030355522
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heron L, O’Neill C, McAneney H, Kee F, Tully MA. Direct healthcare costs of sedentary behaviour in the UK. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2019;73(7):625–629. doi:10.1136/jech-2018-21175830910857
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cunningham C, O’Sullivan R, Caserotti P, Tully MA. Consequences of physical inactivity in older adults: a systematic review of reviews and meta‐analyses. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 2020;30(5):816–827. doi:10.1111/sms.1361632020713
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paterson DH, Warburton DE. Physical activity and functional limitations in older adults: a systematic review related to Canada’s physical activity guidelines. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2010;7(1):1–22. doi:10.1186/1479-5868-7-3820145731
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber M, Belala N, Clemson L, et al. Feasibility and effectiveness of intervention programmes integrating functional exercise into daily life of older adults: a systematic review. Gerontology. 2018;64(2):172–187. doi:10.1159/00047996528910814
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin A, Fitzsimons C, Jepson R, et al. Interventions with potential to reduce sedentary time in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Sports Med. 2015;49(16):1056–1063. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2014-09452425907181
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Prince S, Saunders T, Gresty K, Reid R. A comparison of the effectiveness of physical activity and sedentary behaviour interventions in reducing sedentary time in adults: a systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled trials. Obes Rev. 2014;15(11):905–919. doi:10.1111/obr.1221525112481
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burton E, Lewin G, Boldy D. Physical activity levels of older adults receiving a home care service. J Aging Phys Act. 2013;21(2):140–154. doi:10.1123/japa.21.2.14022832235
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kerse N, Peri K, Robinson E, et al. Does a functional activity programme improve function, quality of life, and falls for residents in long term care? Cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2008;337:a1445. doi:10.1136/bmj.a144518845605
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eanes L. Ce: Too much sitting: a newly recognized health risk. Am J Nurs. 2018;118(9):26–34. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000544948.27593.9b
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharp S, Mcallister M, Broadbent M. The tension between person centred and task focused care in an acute surgical setting: a critical ethnography. Collegian. 2018;25(1):11–17. doi:10.1016/j.colegn.2017.02.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burton E, Farrier K, Galvin R, et al. Physical activity programs for older people in the community receiving home care services: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Interv Aging. 2019;14:1045. doi:10.2147/CIA.S20501931239654
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Resnick B, Boltz M, Galik E, Pretzer-Aboff I. Restorative care nursing for older adults: a guide for all care settings. New York: Springer Publishing Company; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Schuurmans M, Lambregts J, Grotendorst A. Beroepsprofiel verpleegkundige. Deel 1: Leren van de toekomst [Nursing Professional Profile. Part 1: Learning from the future]. Verpleegkundigen en Verzorgenden 2020; 2012. Dutch.
   Google Scholar
• Metzelthin SF, Rostgaard T, Parsons M, Burton E. Development of an internationally accepted definition of reablement: a delphi study. Ageing Soc. 2020;1–16. doi:10.1017/S0144686X20000999
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cochrane A, Furlong M, McGilloway S, Molloy DW, Stevenson M, Donnelly M. Time‐limited home‐care reablement services for maintaining and improving the functional Independence of older adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10:CD010825. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010825.pub227726122
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sims-Gould J, Tong CE, Wallis-Mayer L, Ashe MC. Reablement, reactivation, rehabilitation and restorative interventions with older adults in receipt of home care: a systematic review. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2017;18(8):653–663. doi:10.1016/j.jamda.2016.12.07028214234
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aspinal F, Glasby J, Rostgaard T, Tuntland H, Westendorp RGJ. New horizons: reablement - supporting older people towards Independence. Age Ageing. 2016;45(5):574–578. doi:10.1093/ageing/afw094
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehead PJ, Worthington EJ, Parry RH, Walker MF, Drummond AE. Interventions to reduce dependency in personal activities of daily living in community dwelling adults who use homecare services: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil. 2015;29(11):1064–1076. doi:10.1177/026921551456489425587088
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuntland H, Aaslund MK, Espehaug B, Førland O, Kjeken I. Reablement in community-dwelling older adults: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Geriatr. 2015;15(1):145. doi:10.1186/s12877-015-0142-926537789
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tinetti ME, Baker D, Gallo WT, Nanda A, Charpentier P, O’Leary J. Evaluation of restorative care vs usual care for older adults receiving an acute episode of home care. JAMA. 2002;287(16):2098–2105. doi:10.1001/jama.287.16.209811966384
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewin G, Allan J, Patterson C, Knuiman M, Boldy D, Hendrie D. A comparison of the home-care and healthcare service use and costs of older Australians randomised to receive a restorative or a conventional home-care service. Health Soc Care Community. 2014;22(3):328–336. doi:10.1111/hsc.1209224438385
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lewin GF, Alfonso HS, Alan JJ. Evidence for the long term cost effectiveness of home care reablement programs. Clin Interv Aging. 2013;8:1273. doi:10.2147/CIA.S4916424124354
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kjerstad E, Tuntland HK. Reablement in community-dwelling older adults: a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial. Health Econom Rev. 2016;6(1):15. doi:10.1186/s13561-016-0092-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glendinning C, Jones K, Baxter K, et al. Home Care Re-Ablement Services: Investigating the Longer-Term Impacts (Prospective Longitudinal Study). York/Canterburry: Social Policy Research Unit (SPRU)/Personal Social Service Research Unit (PSSRU); 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Bauer A, Fernandez JL, Henderson C, Wittenberg R, Knapp M. Cost‐minimisation analysis of home care reablement for older people in England: a modelling study. Health Soc Care Community. 2019;27:1241–1250. doi:10.1111/hsc.1275631006936
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzelthin SF, Zijlstra GAR, Van Rossum E, et al. Doing with…’rather than ‘doing for…’ older adults: rationale and content of the ‘stay active at home’ programme. Clin Rehabil. 2017;31(11):1419–1430. doi:10.1177/026921551769873329050508
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smeets RGM, Kempen GIJM, Zijlstra GAR, et al. Experiences of home‐care workers with the ‘stay active at home’ programme targeting reablement of community‐living older adults: an exploratory study. Health Soc Care Community. 2020;28(1):291–299. doi:10.1111/hsc.1286331588655
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Metzelthin SF, Rooijackers TH, Zijlstra GAR, et al. Effects, costs and feasibility of the ‘stay active at home’ reablement training programme for home care professionals: study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMC Geriatr. 2018;18(1):276. doi:10.1186/s12877-018-0968-z30424738
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rooijackers T, Zijlstra G, van Rossum E, Veenstra M, Kempen G, Metzelthin S. Process evaluation of a reablement training program for homecare staff to encourage Independence in community-dwelling older adults. BMC Geriatr. 2021;21(1). doi:10.1186/s12877-020-01936-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rooijackers TH, Kempen GIJM, Zijlstra GAR, et al. Effectiveness of a reablement training program for homecare staff on older adults‘ sedentary behavior: a cluster randomized controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2021;69(9):2566–2578. doi:10.1111/jgs.1728634097301
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brouwer W, van Baal P, van Exel J, Versteegh M. When is It Too Expensive? Cost-Effectiveness Thresholds and Health Care Decision-Making. Springer; 2019. doi:10.1007/s10198-018-1000-4
   Google Scholar
• Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (cheers) statement. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(3):367–372. doi:10.1186/1741-7015-11-8023526140
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zorginstituut Nederland. Richtlijnen voor het uitvoeren van economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg [Guideline for conducting economic evaluations in healthcare]. Diemen, The Netherlands: Zorginstituut Nederland; 2016. Dutch.
   Google Scholar
• Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford University Press; 2015.
   Google Scholar
• Kempen GI, Miedema I, Ormel J, Molenaar W. The assessment of disability with the Groningen activity restriction scale. Conceptual framework and psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med. 1996;43(11):1601–1610. doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(96)00057-38961404
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouwmans C, Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Koopmanschap M, Krol M, Severens H, Brouwer W. Handleiding iMTA Medical Consumption Questionnaire [Manual iMTA Medical Consumption Questionnaire]. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Institute for Medical Technology Assessment, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam; 2013. Dutch.
   Google Scholar
• Hakkaart-van Roijen L, Van der Linden N, Bouwmans C, Kanters T, Tan SS. Kostenhandleiding: Methodologie van kostenonderzoek en referentieprijzen voor economische evaluaties in de gezondheidszorg [Costing manual: Methodology of costing research and reference prices for economic evaluations in healthcare]. Diemen, The Netherlands: Zorginstituut Nederlands; 2015. Dutch.
   Google Scholar
• Cole RJ, Kripke DF, Gruen W, Mullaney DJ, Gillin JC. Automatic sleep/wake identification from wrist activity. Sleep. 1992;15(5):461–469. doi:10.1093/sleep/15.5.4611455130
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Choi L, Liu Z, Matthews CE, Buchowski MS. Validation of accelerometer wear and nonwear time classification algorithm. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(2):357. doi:10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181ed61a320581716
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koster A, Shiroma EJ, Caserotti P, et al. Comparison of sedentary estimates between activpal and hip-and wrist-worn actigraph. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2016;48(8):1514. doi:10.1249/MSS.000000000000092427031744
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The EuroQol Group. Euroqol-A new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy (New York). 1990;16(3):199–208. doi:10.1016/0168-8510(90)90421-9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of eq-5d (eq-5d-5l). Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–1736. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x21479777
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Versteegh MM, Vermeulen KM, Evers SM, De Wit GA, Prenger R, Stolk EA. Dutch tariff for the five-level version of eq-5d. Val Health. 2016;19(4):343–352. doi:10.1016/j.jval.2016.01.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Van Buuren S. Flexible Imputation of Missing Data. Boca Raton: CRC press; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. Vol. 81. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Rascati KL, Smith MJ, Neilands T. Dealing with skewed data: an example using asthma-related costs of Medicaid clients. Clin Ther. 2001;23(3):481–498. doi:10.1016/S0149-2918(01)80052-711318082
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tibshirani RJ, Efron B. An introduction to the bootstrap. Monog Stat Appl Probab. 1993;57:1–436.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson SG, Barber JA. How should cost data in pragmatic randomised trials be analysed? BMJ. 2000;320:1197–1200. doi:10.1136/bmj.320.7243.119710784550
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Black WC. The ce plane: a graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making. 1990;10(3):212–214. doi:10.1177/0272989X90010003082115096
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenwick E, O’Brien BJ, Briggs A. Cost‐effectiveness acceptability curves–facts, fallacies and frequently asked questions. Health Econ. 2004;13(5):405–415. doi:10.1002/hec.90315127421
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fenwick E, Byford S. A guide to cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Br J Psychiatry. 2005;187(2):106–108. doi:10.1192/bjp.187.2.10616055820
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zorginstituut Nederland. Kosteneffectiviteit in de Praktijk [Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in Practice]. Diemen, The Netherlands: Zorginstituut Nederland; 2015. Dutch.
   Google Scholar
• Zorginstituut Nederland. Ziektelast in de Praktijk: De Theorie En Praktijk van Het Berekenen van Ziektelast Bij Pakketbeoordelingen [The Theory and Practice of Calculating Burden of Disease in Package Assessments]. Diemen, The Netherlands: Zorginstituut Nederland; 2020. Dutch.
   Google Scholar
• Croarkin C, Tobias P, Filliben J, Hembree B, Guthrie W. Nist/Sematech e-Handbook of Statistical Methods. Gaithersburg: Nist/sematech; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• Genet N, Boerma W, Kroneman M, Hutchinson A, Saltman RB; World Health Organization. Home Care Across Europe: Current Structure and Future Challenges. Copenhagen: World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Kroneman M, Boerma W, van den Berg M, Groenewegen P, de Jong J, van Ginneken E. The Netherlands: Health System Review. Health System in Transition. Kopenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Beresford B, Mayhew E, Duarte A, et al. Outcomes of reablement and their measurement: findings from an evaluation of English reablement services. Health Soc Care Community. 2019;27(6):1438–1450. doi:10.1111/hsc.1281431368621
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lorthioir NT. Including relatives in the “stay active at home” program. Clin Rehabil. 2018;32(3):419–420. doi:10.1177/026921551775248929307235
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tessier A, Beaulieu M-D, Mcginn CA, Latulippe R. Effectiveness of reablement: a systematic review. Healthc Policy. 2016;11:49. doi:10.12927/hcpol.2016.2459427232236
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mjøsund HL, Moe CF, Burton E, Uhrenfeldt L. Integration of physical activity in reablement for community dwelling older adults: a systematic scoping review. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2020;13:1291–1315. doi:10.21203/rs.2.17945/v133154647
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Usman A, Lewis S, Hinsliff-Smith K, et al. Measuring health-related quality of life of care home residents, comparison of self-report with staff proxy responses for eq-5d-5l and howru: protocol for assessing proxy reliability in care home outcome testing. BMJ Open. 2018;8(8):e022127. doi:10.1093/ageing/afy191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulamu NB, Kaambwa B, Ratcliffe J. A systematic review of instruments for measuring outcomes in economic evaluation within aged care. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13(1):1–23. doi:10.1186/s12955-015-0372-825608461
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Dongen JM, van Wier MF, Tompa E, et al. Trial-based economic evaluations in occupational health: principles, methods, and recommendations. J Occup Environ Med. 2014;56(6):563. doi:10.1097/JOM.000000000000016524854249
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the qaly and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010;96(1):5–21. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldq03321037243
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Faria R, Kiss N, Aspinal F, Harden M, Weatherly H. Economic evaluation of social care Interventions: lessons drawn from a systematic review of the methods used to evaluate reablement. Health Econ Outcome Res. 2016;96(1):107. doi:10.1093/bmb/ldq033
   Google Scholar
• Bulamu NB, Kaambwa B, Ratcliffe J. Economic evaluations in community aged care: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):1–13. doi:10.1186/s12913-018-3785-329291745
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Dijk C, Van den Burg M, Dik J-W, Heim N. Ouderenzorg 2013–2016 Deel 1 | Zorggebruik En Zorgkosten van Ouderen [Elderly Care 2013-2016 Part 1 | Care Use and Costs of the Elderly]. Diemen, The Netherlands: Zorginstituut Nederland; 2018. Dutch.
   Google Scholar
• Clotworthy A, Kusumastuti S, Westendorp RG. Reablement through time and space: a scoping review of how the concept of ‘reablement’for older people has been defined and operationalised. BMC Geriatr. 2020;21:1–16. doi:10.21203/rs.2.21256/v3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Makai P, Brouwer WB, Koopmanschap MA, Stolk EA, Nieboer AP. Quality of life instruments for economic evaluations in health and social care for older people: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. 2014;102:83–93. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.11.05024565145
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar