Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26479077›Full record

Trial reportPLoS medicine2015

Effect of health risk assessment and counselling on health behaviour and survival in older people: a pragmatic randomised trial.

Andreas E Stuck, André Moser, Ueli Morf, Urban Wirz, Joseph Wyser, Gerhard Gillmann, Stephan Born, Marcel Zwahlen, Steve Iliffe, Danielle Harari and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PLoS medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
9.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 67 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

13 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.

Andreas E StuckDepartment of Geriatrics, Inselspital, University Hospital Bern and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
André MoserDepartment of Geriatrics, Inselspital, University Hospital Bern and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Ueli MorfInstitute of Primary Care, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Urban WirzInstitute of Primary Care, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Joseph WyserInstitute of Primary Care, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Gerhard GillmannInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Stephan BornDepartment of Geriatrics, Inselspital, University Hospital Bern and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Marcel ZwahlenInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Steve IliffeResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, United Kingdom.
Danielle HarariDepartment of Ageing and Health, St. Thomas' Hospital, London, United Kingdom.
Cameron SwiftClinical Age Research Unit, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.
John C BeckUniversity of California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America; Langley Research Institute, Los Angeles, California, United States of America; Langley Research Institute, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Matthias EggerInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
University of Bern · CHInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine · CHKing's College London · GBSt Thomas' Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity Hospital of Bern · CHUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPotentially avoidable risk factors continue to cause unnecessary disability and premature death in older people. Health risk assessment (HRA), a method successfully used in working-age populations, is a promising method for cost-effective health promotion and preventive care in older individuals, but the long-term effects of this approach are unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of an innovative approach to HRA and counselling in older individuals for health behaviours, preventive care, and long-term survival. METHODS AND

findingsThis study was a pragmatic, single-centre randomised controlled clinical trial in community-dwelling individuals aged 65 y or older registered with one of 19 primary care physician (PCP) practices in a mixed rural and urban area in Switzerland. From November 2000 to January 2002, 874 participants were randomly allocated to the intervention and 1,410 to usual care. The intervention consisted of HRA based on self-administered questionnaires and individualised computer-generated feedback reports, combined with nurse and PCP counselling over a 2-y period. Primary outcomes were health behaviours and preventive care use at 2 y and all-cause mortality at 8 y. At baseline, participants in the intervention group had a mean ± standard deviation of 6.9 ± 3.7 risk factors (including unfavourable health behaviours, health and functional impairments, and social risk factors) and 4.3 ± 1.8 deficits in recommended preventive care. At 2 y, favourable health behaviours and use of preventive care were more frequent in the intervention than in the control group (based on z-statistics from generalised estimating equation models). For example, 70% compared to 62% were physically active (odds ratio 1.43, 95% CI 1.16-1.77, p = 0.001), and 66% compared to 59% had influenza vaccinations in the past year (odds ratio 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.66, p = 0.005). At 8 y, based on an intention-to-treat analysis, the estimated proportion alive was 77.9% in the intervention and 72.8% in the control group, for an absolute mortality difference of 4.9% (95% CI 1.3%-8.5%, p = 0.009; based on z-test for risk difference). The hazard ratio of death comparing intervention with control was 0.79 (95% CI 0.66-0.94, p = 0.009; based on Wald test from Cox regression model), and the number needed to receive the intervention to prevent one death was 21 (95% CI 12-79). The main limitations of the study include the single-site study design, the use of a brief self-administered questionnaire for 2-y outcome data collection, the unavailability of other long-term outcome data (e.g., functional status, nursing home admissions), and the availability of long-term follow-up data on mortality for analysis only in 2014.

conclusionsThis is the first trial to our knowledge demonstrating that a collaborative care model of HRA in community-dwelling older people not only results in better health behaviours and increased use of recommended preventive care interventions, but also improves survival. The intervention tested in our study may serve as a model of how to implement a relatively low-cost but effective programme of disease prevention and health promotion in older individuals.

trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN 28458424.

Indexed as

CounselingHealth BehaviorAgedFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHumansMaleMortalityPreventive Health ServicesRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsSurveys and QuestionnairesSurvival AnalysisSwitzerland

Identifiers

PMID26479077
PMCPMC4610679
OpenAlexW1829283065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.