Preventive interventions to improve older people's health outcomes : systematic review and meta-analysis
© The Authors..
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of preventive, non-disease-specific primary care trials for older people often report effects according to what is thought to be the intervention's active ingredient.
AIM: To examine the effectiveness of preventive primary care interventions for older people and to identify common components that contribute to intervention success.
DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 22 publications from 2009 to 2019.
METHOD: A search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria were: sample mainly aged ≥65 years; delivered in primary care; and non-disease-specific interventions. Exclusion criteria were: non-RCTs; primarily pharmacological or psychological interventions; and where outcomes of interest were not reported. Risk of bias was assessed using the original Cochrane tool. Outcomes examined were healthcare use including admissions to hospital and aged residential care (ARC), and patient-reported outcomes including activities of daily living (ADLs) and self-rated health (SRH).
RESULTS: Many studies had a mix of patient-, provider-, and practice-focused intervention components (13 of 18 studies). Studies included in the review had low-to-moderate risk of bias. Interventions had no overall benefit to healthcare use (including admissions to hospital and ARC) but higher basic ADL scores were observed (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01 to 0.40) and higher odds of reporting positive SRH (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.37). When intervention effects were examined by components, better patient-reported outcomes were observed in studies that changed the care setting (SMD for basic ADLs 0.21, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.40; OR for positive SRH 1.17, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.37), included educational components for health professionals (SMD for basic ADLs 0.21, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.40; OR for positive SRH 1.27, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.55), and provided patient education (SMD for basic ADLs 0.28, 95% CI = 0.09 to 0.48). Additionally, admissions to hospital in intervention participants were fewer by 23% in studies that changed the care setting (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.77, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.95) and by 26% in studies that provided patient education (IRR 0.74, 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.97).
CONCLUSION: Preventive primary care interventions are beneficial to older people's functional ability and SRH but not other outcomes. To improve primary care for older people, future programmes should consider delivering care in alternative settings, for example, home visits and phone contacts, and providing education to patients and health professionals as these may contribute to positive outcomes.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:74 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners - 74(2024), 741 vom: 18. März, Seite e208-e218 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Palapar, Leah [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Activities of daily living |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 29.03.2024 Date Revised 29.03.2024 published: Electronic-Print Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.3399/BJGP.2023.0180 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM369890051 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM369890051 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240330001332.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240319s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.3399/BJGP.2023.0180 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1355.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM369890051 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)38499364 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Palapar, Leah |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Preventive interventions to improve older people's health outcomes |b systematic review and meta-analysis |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 29.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 29.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic-Print | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © The Authors. | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of preventive, non-disease-specific primary care trials for older people often report effects according to what is thought to be the intervention's active ingredient | ||
| 520 | |a AIM: To examine the effectiveness of preventive primary care interventions for older people and to identify common components that contribute to intervention success | ||
| 520 | |a DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 18 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 22 publications from 2009 to 2019 | ||
| 520 | |a METHOD: A search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. Inclusion criteria were: sample mainly aged ≥65 years; delivered in primary care; and non-disease-specific interventions. Exclusion criteria were: non-RCTs; primarily pharmacological or psychological interventions; and where outcomes of interest were not reported. Risk of bias was assessed using the original Cochrane tool. Outcomes examined were healthcare use including admissions to hospital and aged residential care (ARC), and patient-reported outcomes including activities of daily living (ADLs) and self-rated health (SRH) | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Many studies had a mix of patient-, provider-, and practice-focused intervention components (13 of 18 studies). Studies included in the review had low-to-moderate risk of bias. Interventions had no overall benefit to healthcare use (including admissions to hospital and ARC) but higher basic ADL scores were observed (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.01 to 0.40) and higher odds of reporting positive SRH (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.37). When intervention effects were examined by components, better patient-reported outcomes were observed in studies that changed the care setting (SMD for basic ADLs 0.21, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.40; OR for positive SRH 1.17, 95% CI = 1.01 to 1.37), included educational components for health professionals (SMD for basic ADLs 0.21, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.40; OR for positive SRH 1.27, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.55), and provided patient education (SMD for basic ADLs 0.28, 95% CI = 0.09 to 0.48). Additionally, admissions to hospital in intervention participants were fewer by 23% in studies that changed the care setting (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.77, 95% CI = 0.63 to 0.95) and by 26% in studies that provided patient education (IRR 0.74, 95% CI = 0.56 to 0.97) | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: Preventive primary care interventions are beneficial to older people's functional ability and SRH but not other outcomes. To improve primary care for older people, future programmes should consider delivering care in alternative settings, for example, home visits and phone contacts, and providing education to patients and health professionals as these may contribute to positive outcomes | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Meta-Analysis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Systematic Review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a activities of daily living | |
| 650 | 4 | |a aged | |
| 650 | 4 | |a aged, 80 and over | |
| 650 | 4 | |a general practice | |
| 650 | 4 | |a healthcare use | |
| 650 | 4 | |a patient reported outcome measures | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Blom, Jeanet W |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wilkinson-Meyers, Laura |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lumley, Thomas |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kerse, Ngaire |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners |d 1996 |g 74(2024), 741 vom: 18. März, Seite e208-e218 |w (DE-627)NLM012664286 |x 1478-5242 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:74 |g year:2024 |g number:741 |g day:18 |g month:03 |g pages:e208-e218 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2023.0180 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 74 |j 2024 |e 741 |b 18 |c 03 |h e208-e218 | ||