Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25384813›Full record

Trial reportAnnals of family medicine

The cluster-randomized BRIGHT trial: Proactive case finding for community-dwelling older adults.

Ngaire Kerse, Chris McLean, Simon A Moyes, Kathy Peri, Terence Ng, Laura Wilkinson-Meyers, Paul Brown, Nancy Latham, Martin Connolly

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Annals of family medicine. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Ngaire KerseSchool of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand n.kerse@auckland.ac.nz.
Chris McLeanSchool of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Interdisciplinary Trauma Research Centre, AUT University, Auckland, New Zealand.
Simon A MoyesSchool of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Kathy PeriSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Terence NgSchool of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Laura Wilkinson-MeyersSchool of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Paul BrownSchool of Population Health, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Health Sciences Research Institute, University of California, Merced, California.
Nancy LathamHealth and Disability Research Institute, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts.
Martin ConnollyFreemason's Department of Geriatric Medicine, Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePeople are now living longer, but disability may affect the quality of those additional years of life. We undertook a trial to assess whether case finding reduces disability among older primary care patients.

methodsWe conducted a cluster-randomized trial of the Brief Risk Identification Geriatric Health Tool (BRIGHT) among 60 primary care practices in New Zealand, assigning them to an intervention or control group. Intervention practices sent a BRIGHT screening tool to older adults every birthday; those with a score of 3 or higher were referred to regional geriatric services for assessment and, if needed, service provision. Control practices provided usual care. Main outcomes, assessed in blinded fashion, were residential care placement and hospitalization, and secondary outcomes were disability, assessed with Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale (NEADL), and quality of life, assessed with the World Health Organization Quality of Life scale, abbreviated version (WHOQOL-BREF).

resultsAll 8,308 community-dwelling patients aged 75 years and older were approached; 3,893 (47%) participated, of whom 3,010 (77%) completed the trial. Their mean age was 80.3 (SD 4.5) years, and 55% were women. Overall, 88% of the intervention group returned a BRIGHT tool; 549 patients were referred. After 36 months, patients in the intervention group were more likely than those in the control group to have been placed in residential care: 8.4% vs 6.2% (hazard ratio = 1.32; 95% CI, 1.04-1.68; P = .02). Intervention patients had smaller declines in mean scores for physical health-related quality of life (1.6 vs 2.9 points, P = .007) and psychological health-related quality of life (1.1 vs 2.4 points, P = .005). Hospitalization, disability, and use of services did not differ between groups, however.

conclusionsOur case-finding strategy was effective in increasing identification of older adults with disability, but there was little evidence of improved outcomes. Further research could trial stronger primary care integration strategies.

Indexed as

Disability EvaluationHealth StatusQuality of LifeAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHealth ServicesHomes for the AgedHospitalizationHumansIndependent LivingInterviews as TopicMaledisabilityearly medical interventionolder adultspopulation screeningpractice-based researchprimary care

Identifiers

PMID25384813
PMCPMC4226772

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.