Self-management program versus usual care for community-dwelling older adults with multimorbidity: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial in Ontario, Canada.

Journal of comorbidity Pub Date : 2020-10-16 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1177/2235042X20963390
Kathryn Fisher, Maureen Markle-Reid, Jenny Ploeg, Amy Bartholomew, Lauren E Griffith, Amiram Gafni, Lehana Thabane, Marie-Lee Yous
{"title":"Self-management program versus usual care for community-dwelling older adults with multimorbidity: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial in Ontario, Canada.","authors":"Kathryn Fisher,&nbsp;Maureen Markle-Reid,&nbsp;Jenny Ploeg,&nbsp;Amy Bartholomew,&nbsp;Lauren E Griffith,&nbsp;Amiram Gafni,&nbsp;Lehana Thabane,&nbsp;Marie-Lee Yous","doi":"10.1177/2235042X20963390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multimorbidity, the co-existence of 2+ (or 3+) chronic diseases in an individual, is an increasingly common global phenomenon leading to reduced quality of life and functional status, and higher healthcare service use and mortality. There is an urgent need to develop and test new models of care that incorporate the components of multimorbidity interventions recommended by international organizations, including care coordination, interdisciplinary teams, and care plans developed with patients that are tailored to their needs and preferences.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To determine the effectiveness of a 6-month, community-based, multimorbidity intervention compared to usual home care services for community-dwelling older adults (age 65+ years) with multimorbidity (3+ chronic conditions) that were newly referred to and receiving home care services.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A pragmatic, parallel, two-arm randomized controlled trial evaluated the intervention, which included in-home visits by an interdisciplinary team, personal support worker visits, and monthly case conferences. The study took place in two sites in central Ontario, Canada. Eligible and consenting participants were randomly allocated to the intervention and control group using a 1:1 ratio. The participants, statistician/analyst, and research assistants collecting assessment data were blinded. The primary outcome was the Physical Component Summary (PCS) score of the 12-Item Short-Form health survey (SF-12). Secondary outcomes included the SF-12 Mental Component Summary (MCS) score, Center for Epidemiological Studies of Depression (CESD-10), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease, and service use and costs. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tested group differences using multiple imputation to address missing data, and non-parametric methods explored service use and cost differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>59 older adults were randomized into the intervention (n = 30) and control (n = 29) groups. At baseline, groups were similar for the primary outcome and number of chronic conditions (mean of 8.6), but the intervention group had lower mental health status. The intervention was cost neutral and no significant group differences were observed for the primary outcome of PCS from SF-12 (mean difference: -4.94; 95% CI: -12.53 to 2.66; p = 0.20) or secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We evaluated a 6-month, self-management intervention for older adults with multimorbidity. While the intervention was cost neutral in comparison to usual care, it was not found to improve the PCS from SF-12 or secondary health outcomes. Recruitment and retention challenges were significant obstacles limiting our ability to assess intervention effectiveness. Yet, the intervention was grounded in internationally-endorsed recommendations and implemented in a practice setting (home care) viewed as a key upstream resource fostering independence in older adults. These features collectively support the identification of ways to recruit/retain older adults and test alternative implementation strategies for interventions that are based on sound principles of multimorbidity management.</p>","PeriodicalId":92071,"journal":{"name":"Journal of comorbidity","volume":"10 ","pages":"2235042X20963390"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/2235042X20963390","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of comorbidity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2235042X20963390","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Background: Multimorbidity, the co-existence of 2+ (or 3+) chronic diseases in an individual, is an increasingly common global phenomenon leading to reduced quality of life and functional status, and higher healthcare service use and mortality. There is an urgent need to develop and test new models of care that incorporate the components of multimorbidity interventions recommended by international organizations, including care coordination, interdisciplinary teams, and care plans developed with patients that are tailored to their needs and preferences.

Purpose: To determine the effectiveness of a 6-month, community-based, multimorbidity intervention compared to usual home care services for community-dwelling older adults (age 65+ years) with multimorbidity (3+ chronic conditions) that were newly referred to and receiving home care services.

Methods: A pragmatic, parallel, two-arm randomized controlled trial evaluated the intervention, which included in-home visits by an interdisciplinary team, personal support worker visits, and monthly case conferences. The study took place in two sites in central Ontario, Canada. Eligible and consenting participants were randomly allocated to the intervention and control group using a 1:1 ratio. The participants, statistician/analyst, and research assistants collecting assessment data were blinded. The primary outcome was the Physical Component Summary (PCS) score of the 12-Item Short-Form health survey (SF-12). Secondary outcomes included the SF-12 Mental Component Summary (MCS) score, Center for Epidemiological Studies of Depression (CESD-10), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease, and service use and costs. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tested group differences using multiple imputation to address missing data, and non-parametric methods explored service use and cost differences.

Results: 59 older adults were randomized into the intervention (n = 30) and control (n = 29) groups. At baseline, groups were similar for the primary outcome and number of chronic conditions (mean of 8.6), but the intervention group had lower mental health status. The intervention was cost neutral and no significant group differences were observed for the primary outcome of PCS from SF-12 (mean difference: -4.94; 95% CI: -12.53 to 2.66; p = 0.20) or secondary outcomes.

Conclusion: We evaluated a 6-month, self-management intervention for older adults with multimorbidity. While the intervention was cost neutral in comparison to usual care, it was not found to improve the PCS from SF-12 or secondary health outcomes. Recruitment and retention challenges were significant obstacles limiting our ability to assess intervention effectiveness. Yet, the intervention was grounded in internationally-endorsed recommendations and implemented in a practice setting (home care) viewed as a key upstream resource fostering independence in older adults. These features collectively support the identification of ways to recruit/retain older adults and test alternative implementation strategies for interventions that are based on sound principles of multimorbidity management.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

自我管理计划与常规护理对社区居住的多病老年人:加拿大安大略省的一项实用随机对照试验。
背景:多重发病,即个体同时存在2+(或3+)种慢性疾病,是一种日益普遍的全球现象,导致生活质量和功能状态下降,医疗服务使用率和死亡率升高。迫切需要开发和测试新的护理模式,将国际组织推荐的多种疾病干预措施的组成部分纳入其中,包括护理协调、跨学科团队和根据患者的需求和偏好量身定制的护理计划。目的:对新近转诊并接受家庭护理服务的社区居住的多病老年人(65岁以上)(3种以上慢性疾病)进行为期6个月、以社区为基础的多病干预,与通常的家庭护理服务相比,确定其有效性。方法:一项实用的、平行的、双臂随机对照试验评估了干预措施,包括跨学科团队的家访、个人支持工作者的访问和每月的病例会议。这项研究在加拿大安大略省中部的两个地点进行。符合条件和同意的参与者按1:1的比例随机分配到干预组和对照组。参与者、统计学家/分析师和收集评估数据的研究助理采用盲法。主要结果为12项简短健康调查(SF-12)的身体成分总结(PCS)得分。次要结果包括SF-12心理成分总结(MCS)评分、抑郁症流行病学研究中心(csd -10)、广泛性焦虑障碍(GAD-7)、管理慢性病的自我效能以及服务使用和成本。协方差分析(ANCOVA)使用多重输入来解决缺失数据,并使用非参数方法来探索服务使用和成本差异。结果:59名老年人随机分为干预组(n = 30)和对照组(n = 29)。在基线时,各组的主要结局和慢性疾病数量相似(平均8.6),但干预组的心理健康状况较低。干预是成本中性的,SF-12的PCS主要结局没有显著的组间差异(平均差异:-4.94;95% CI: -12.53 ~ 2.66;P = 0.20)或次要结局。结论:我们评估了一个6个月,自我管理干预老年人多病。虽然与常规护理相比,干预措施的成本是中性的,但没有发现它能改善SF-12或次要健康结果的PCS。招募和保留挑战是限制我们评估干预效果能力的重大障碍。然而,干预措施是基于国际认可的建议,并在实践环境中实施(家庭护理),这被视为培养老年人独立性的关键上游资源。这些特点共同支持确定招募/留住老年人的方法,并测试基于健全的多病管理原则的干预措施的替代实施策略。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信