Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27624567›Full record

Trial reportZeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie2016

[Acceptance of preventive home visits among frail elderly persons : Participants an non-participants in a Follow-up after 2 and 4 years within the LUCAS longitudinal study].

F Pröfener, J Anders, U Dapp, C E Minder, S Golgert, W von Renteln-Kruse

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Review
  7. [Sarcopenia and frailty 2016 : Going separate ways].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2016
    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

6 authors.

F PröfenerPflege- und Alternsforschung, Hamburgische Pflegegesellschaft e. V., Burchardstr. 19, 20095, Hamburg, Deutschland. franz.proefener@hpg-ev.de.
J AndersKlinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie, Bethesda Krankenhaus Bergedorf, Bergedorf, Deutschland.
U DappForschungsabteilung Albertinen-Haus, Zentrum für Geriatrie und Gerontologie, Wissenschaftliche Einrichtung an der Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Deutschland.
C E MinderHorten Zentrum, Medizinische Fakultät, Universität Zürich, Zürich, Schweiz.
S GolgertForschungsabteilung Albertinen-Haus, Zentrum für Geriatrie und Gerontologie, Wissenschaftliche Einrichtung an der Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Deutschland.
W von Renteln-KruseForschungsabteilung Albertinen-Haus, Zentrum für Geriatrie und Gerontologie, Wissenschaftliche Einrichtung an der Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Deutschland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objective of preventive home visits (PHV) is to support independent living of elderly people. The target group is a matter of discussion and acceptance so far seems to have been low. The target group favored in studies were persons with functional impairments living independently; therefore, acceptance of this offer by frail persons and characteristics of participants and non-participants were studied. MATERIAL AND

methodsAll participants classified as frail in the longitudinal urban cohort ageing study (LUCAS; BMBF Fkz 01ET0708-13/01, ET1002A-D/01EL1407) were randomized (RCT) in 2007/2008 into an intervention group (174 persons) and a control group (379 persons). Participants in the intervention group were offered the option of a PHV. Sociodemographic and health-related characteristics were compared between the participants with a PHV, non-participants and controls at baseline and after 2 and 4 years. Non-participants who refused the offer of the PHV were asked about their reasons.

resultsThere were 64 persons (36.8 %) in the intervention group classified as frail who accepted the offer of a PHV. Of these, significantly more lived alone, tended to be female with a higher educational level and with less need of care. After 2 years significantly more persons in the group without PHV had died and after 4 years more participants with PHV reported a depressive mood. There were no other significant differences between the groups. Half of the reasons not to accept the PHV that were reported by the non-participants were because of health-related or psychological problems and one third because of lack of interest or need for PHV.

conclusionThe offer of PHV to frail elderly persons with an unlimited age was associated with a relatively high acceptance. The high number of refusals by non-participants with functional impairments is remarkable and needs further investigation.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesFrail ElderlyGermanyHome Care ServicesHouse CallsHumansLongitudinal StudiesMalePatient Acceptance of Health CarePrevalencePreventive MedicineRisk FactorsSarcopeniaAcceptanceFrailtyNon-participantsPreventive home visitTarget group

Identifiers

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.