Enabling health and maintaining independence for older people at home: the 'HomeHealth' Randomised Controlled Trial.

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Kate Walters, Rachael Frost, Yolanda Barrado-Martín, Sarah Kalwarowsky, Louise Marston, Shengning Pan, Christina Avgerinou, Claire Goodman, Andrew Clegg, Benjamin Gardner, Jane Hopkins, Farah Mahmood, Rebecca L Gould, Rekha Elaswarapou, Claire Jowett, Dawn A Skelton, Vari M Drennan, Claudia Cooper, Kalpa Kharicha, Pip Logan, Matthew Prescot, Gillian Thornton, Tasmin Rookes, Jessica Catchpole, Rachael Hunter
{"title":"Enabling health and maintaining independence for older people at home: the 'HomeHealth' Randomised Controlled Trial.","authors":"Kate Walters, Rachael Frost, Yolanda Barrado-Martín, Sarah Kalwarowsky, Louise Marston, Shengning Pan, Christina Avgerinou, Claire Goodman, Andrew Clegg, Benjamin Gardner, Jane Hopkins, Farah Mahmood, Rebecca L Gould, Rekha Elaswarapou, Claire Jowett, Dawn A Skelton, Vari M Drennan, Claudia Cooper, Kalpa Kharicha, Pip Logan, Matthew Prescot, Gillian Thornton, Tasmin Rookes, Jessica Catchpole, Rachael Hunter","doi":"10.3310/GJKW1909","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>HomeHealth is a home-based, voluntary sector service supporting older people with mild frailty to maintain independence through behaviour change. Support workers discuss the person's priorities and enable setting/achieving goals around mobility, nutrition, socialising and/or psychological well-being.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>We tested clinical and cost-effectiveness of HomeHealth for maintaining independence in older people with mild frailty in a randomised controlled trial.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Design: Single-blind, parallel randomised controlled trial open between 18 January 2021 and 4 July 2023, with mixed-methods process evaluation. Setting: Community-dwelling older people aged 65+ years with mild frailty from 27 general practices and community settings in London, Yorkshire and Hertfordshire. Randomisation: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to receive HomeHealth or treatment as usual. Outcomes: Primary outcome was independence in activities of daily living (modified Barthel Index), analysed using linear mixed models. Secondary outcomes included frailty phenotype score, extended activities of daily living, well-being, psychological distress, loneliness, cognition, falls and mortality. Health economic outcomes included quality of life, capability and service use, including hospital admissions. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and cost-effectiveness planes were used to represent the probability of cost-effectiveness compared to treatment as usual. Process evaluation: We conducted semistructured interviews with participants receiving the intervention, HomeHealth workers and other stakeholders supporting service delivery. Interviews were thematically analysed. Fidelity of audio-recorded appointments was assessed by two independent raters. We evaluated potential mechanisms of impact using data from appointments attended, types of goals set and progress towards goals.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>We recruited 388 participants, mean age 81.4 years (standard deviation 6.5), 64% female and 94% White British/European. HomeHealth did not improve Barthel Index scores at 12 months (0.250, 95% confidence interval -0.932 to 1.432). At 6 months, we found small significant reductions in psychological distress (-1.237, 95% confidence interval -2.127 to -0.348), and frailty phenotype score (-0.252, 95% confidence interval -0.487 to -0.017). At 12 months, we found significant improvements in well-being (1.449, 95% confidence interval 0.124 to 2.775), reduced unplanned admissions (incidence rate ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.92) with lower associated costs (-£586/participant, 95% confidence interval -351 to -821). There were no differences in other outcomes. HomeHealth dominates treatment as usual with a negative point estimate for incremental costs (-796, 95% confidence interval -2016 to 424), positive point estimate for incremental quality-adjusted life-years (0.009, -0.021 to 0.039) and high probability of cost-effectiveness. Process evaluation: Sixty-four semistructured interviews were completed, including 49 participants and 15 HomeHealth workers/stakeholders. The service was acceptable and safe, with good fidelity of delivery. Participants made progress on personalised goals, most working on enhancing mobility. They found the service empowering, and received emotional/practical support. Engagement was more challenging when participants identified no need for change, had significant memory impairment or new/declining illness. Flexibility around varying symptoms and incorporating behaviour change into existing routines promoted engagement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>HomeHealth did not improve independent functioning for older people with mild frailty. There were small significant improvements in frailty status, psychological distress and well-being and a 35% reduction in unplanned admissions, with high probability of cost-effectiveness.</p><p><strong>Limitations: </strong>We used a pragmatic design with intervention delivery in real-world settings during/after the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially with more variability in delivery. Our findings might not apply to other geographical settings/healthcare systems.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR128334.</p>","PeriodicalId":12898,"journal":{"name":"Health technology assessment","volume":"30 43","pages":"1-22"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13202625/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/GJKW1909","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: HomeHealth is a home-based, voluntary sector service supporting older people with mild frailty to maintain independence through behaviour change. Support workers discuss the person's priorities and enable setting/achieving goals around mobility, nutrition, socialising and/or psychological well-being.

Aims: We tested clinical and cost-effectiveness of HomeHealth for maintaining independence in older people with mild frailty in a randomised controlled trial.

Methods: Design: Single-blind, parallel randomised controlled trial open between 18 January 2021 and 4 July 2023, with mixed-methods process evaluation. Setting: Community-dwelling older people aged 65+ years with mild frailty from 27 general practices and community settings in London, Yorkshire and Hertfordshire. Randomisation: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to receive HomeHealth or treatment as usual. Outcomes: Primary outcome was independence in activities of daily living (modified Barthel Index), analysed using linear mixed models. Secondary outcomes included frailty phenotype score, extended activities of daily living, well-being, psychological distress, loneliness, cognition, falls and mortality. Health economic outcomes included quality of life, capability and service use, including hospital admissions. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and cost-effectiveness planes were used to represent the probability of cost-effectiveness compared to treatment as usual. Process evaluation: We conducted semistructured interviews with participants receiving the intervention, HomeHealth workers and other stakeholders supporting service delivery. Interviews were thematically analysed. Fidelity of audio-recorded appointments was assessed by two independent raters. We evaluated potential mechanisms of impact using data from appointments attended, types of goals set and progress towards goals.

Findings: We recruited 388 participants, mean age 81.4 years (standard deviation 6.5), 64% female and 94% White British/European. HomeHealth did not improve Barthel Index scores at 12 months (0.250, 95% confidence interval -0.932 to 1.432). At 6 months, we found small significant reductions in psychological distress (-1.237, 95% confidence interval -2.127 to -0.348), and frailty phenotype score (-0.252, 95% confidence interval -0.487 to -0.017). At 12 months, we found significant improvements in well-being (1.449, 95% confidence interval 0.124 to 2.775), reduced unplanned admissions (incidence rate ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.92) with lower associated costs (-£586/participant, 95% confidence interval -351 to -821). There were no differences in other outcomes. HomeHealth dominates treatment as usual with a negative point estimate for incremental costs (-796, 95% confidence interval -2016 to 424), positive point estimate for incremental quality-adjusted life-years (0.009, -0.021 to 0.039) and high probability of cost-effectiveness. Process evaluation: Sixty-four semistructured interviews were completed, including 49 participants and 15 HomeHealth workers/stakeholders. The service was acceptable and safe, with good fidelity of delivery. Participants made progress on personalised goals, most working on enhancing mobility. They found the service empowering, and received emotional/practical support. Engagement was more challenging when participants identified no need for change, had significant memory impairment or new/declining illness. Flexibility around varying symptoms and incorporating behaviour change into existing routines promoted engagement.

Conclusion: HomeHealth did not improve independent functioning for older people with mild frailty. There were small significant improvements in frailty status, psychological distress and well-being and a 35% reduction in unplanned admissions, with high probability of cost-effectiveness.

Limitations: We used a pragmatic design with intervention delivery in real-world settings during/after the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially with more variability in delivery. Our findings might not apply to other geographical settings/healthcare systems.

Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR128334.

促进老年人在家中的健康和保持独立性:“家庭健康”随机对照试验。
背景:家庭保健是一项以家庭为基础的志愿部门服务,通过改变行为,帮助轻度虚弱的老年人保持独立。支持工作者讨论患者的优先事项,并使其能够围绕流动性、营养、社交和/或心理健康设定/实现目标。目的:我们在一项随机对照试验中测试了家庭健康对轻度虚弱老年人维持独立性的临床和成本效益。方法:设计:在2021年1月18日至2023年7月4日期间开展单盲、平行随机对照试验,采用混合方法进行过程评价。环境:来自伦敦、约克郡和赫特福德郡27个普通诊所和社区环境的65岁以上轻度虚弱的社区居住老年人。随机化:参与者按1:1随机分组,接受家庭健康或常规治疗。结果:主要结果是日常生活活动的独立性(改进的Barthel指数),使用线性混合模型进行分析。次要结局包括虚弱表型评分、日常生活活动扩展、幸福感、心理困扰、孤独、认知、跌倒和死亡率。健康经济结果包括生活质量、能力和服务使用,包括住院率。成本-效果可接受曲线和成本-效果平面用于表示与常规治疗相比成本-效果的概率。过程评估:我们对接受干预的参与者、家庭保健工作者和其他支持服务提供的利益相关者进行了半结构化访谈。对访谈进行了主题分析。录音预约的保真度由两名独立评等员评估。我们使用来自参加的约会、设定的目标类型和实现目标的进展的数据来评估潜在的影响机制。研究结果:我们招募了388名参与者,平均年龄81.4岁(标准差6.5),64%为女性,94%为英国/欧洲白人。HomeHealth在12个月时没有改善Barthel指数得分(0.250,95%可信区间-0.932 ~ 1.432)。在6个月时,我们发现心理困扰(-1.237,95%置信区间-2.127至-0.348)和脆弱表型评分(-0.252,95%置信区间-0.487至-0.017)有轻微的显著降低。在12个月时,我们发现幸福感显著改善(1.449,95%置信区间0.124至2.775),减少了非计划入院(发病率比0.65,95%置信区间0.54至0.92),相关成本降低(- 586英镑/参与者,95%置信区间-351至-821)。其他结果没有差异。与往常一样,家庭健康在治疗中占主导地位,其增量成本的负积分估计(-796,95%置信区间-2016至424),增量质量调整生命年的正积分估计(0.009,-0.021至0.039)和高成本效益概率。过程评价:完成了64次半结构化访谈,包括49名参与者和15名家庭保健工作者/利益相关者。这项服务是可接受的,安全的,交付的保真度很高。参与者在个人目标方面取得了进展,大多数人都致力于提高流动性。他们发现这项服务赋予了他们力量,并得到了情感和实际的支持。当参与者认为不需要改变,有明显的记忆障碍或新的/恶化的疾病时,参与更具有挑战性。针对不同症状的灵活性和将行为改变纳入现有的日常活动中,促进了参与。结论:家庭健康并不能改善轻度虚弱老年人的独立功能。在虚弱状态、心理困扰和幸福感方面有微小的显著改善,计划外入院的人数减少了35%,具有很高的成本效益。局限性:我们在COVID-19大流行期间/之后的现实环境中使用了实用的干预措施交付设计,可能在交付方面存在更大的可变性。我们的研究结果可能不适用于其他地理环境/医疗保健系统。资助:本摘要介绍了由国家卫生与保健研究所(NIHR)卫生技术评估计划资助的独立研究,奖励号为NIHR128334。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health technology assessment
Health technology assessment 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publishes research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书