Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25878492›Full record

Trial reportClinical interventions in aging2015

Evaluation of the Prevention and Reactivation Care Program (PreCaP) for the hospitalized elderly: a prospective nonrandomized controlled trial.

Kirsten J Asmus-Szepesi, Linda E Flinterman, Marc A Koopmanschap, Anna P Nieboer, Ton J Bakker, Johan P Mackenbach, Ewout W Steyerberg

Abstract readClinical TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical interventions in aging, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Integrating functional ageing into daily clinical practice.Journal of frailty, sarcopenia and falls · 2019
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

7 authors.

Kirsten J Asmus-SzepesiDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Linda E FlintermanDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Marc A KoopmanschapInstitute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Anna P NieboerInstitute of Health Policy and Management, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Ton J BakkerStichting Wetenschap Balans, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Johan P MackenbachDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Ewout W SteyerbergDepartment of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe hospitalized elderly are at risk of functional decline. We evaluated the effects and care costs of a specialized geriatric rehabilitation program aimed at preventing functional decline among at-risk hospitalized elderly.

methodsThe prospective nonrandomized controlled trial reported here was performed in three hospitals in the Netherlands. One hospital implemented the Prevention and Reactivation Care Program (PReCaP), while two other hospitals providing usual care served as control settings. Within the PReCaP hospital we compared patients pre-implementation with patients post-implementation of the PReCaP ("within-hospital analysis"), while our nonrandomized controlled trial compared patients of the PReCaP hospital post-implementation with patients from the two control hospitals providing usual care ("between-hospital analysis"). Hospitalized patients 65 years or older and at risk of functional decline were interviewed at baseline and at 3 and 12 months using validated questionnaires to score functioning, depression, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We estimated costs per unit of care from hospital information systems and national data sources. We used adjusted general linear mixed models to analyze functioning and HRQoL.

resultsBetween-hospital analysis showed no difference in activities of daily living (ADL) or instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) between PReCaP patients and control groups. PReCaP patients did have slightly better cognitive functioning (Mini Mental State Examination; 0.4 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.2-0.6]), lower depression (Geriatric Depression Scale 15; -0.9 [95% -1.1 to -0.6]) and higher perceived health (Short-Form 20; 5.6 [95% CI 2.8-8.4]) than control patients. Analyses within the PReCaP hospital comparing patients pre-and post-implementation of the PReCaP showed no improvement over time in functioning, depression, and HRQoL. One-year health care costs were higher for PReCaP patients, both for the within-hospital analysis (+€7,000) and the between-hospital analysis (+€2,500).

conclusionWe did not find any effect of the PReCaP on ADL and IADL. The PReCaP may possibly provide some benefits to hospitalized patients at risk of functional decline with respect to cognitive functioning, depression, and perceived health. Further evaluations of integrated intervention programs to limit functional decline are therefore required.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleGeriatric AssessmentGeriatricsHospitalizationHumansMaleNetherlandsNeuropsychological TestsOutcome Assessment, Health CarePatient ReadmissionProspective StudiesRehabilitationactivities of daily livingfunctional declinegeriatric rehabilitationhealth-related quality of life

Identifiers

PMID25878492
PMCPMC4388098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.