Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31234857›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Evaluation of bottom-up interventions targeting community-dwelling frail older people in Belgium: methodological challenges and lessons for future comparative effectiveness studies.

Anne-Sophie Lambert, Sophie Ces, Espoir Bwenge Malembaka, Thérèse Van Durme, Anja Declercq, Jean Macq

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. 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
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Anne-Sophie LambertInstitute of Health and Society (IRSS), Université Catholique de Louvain, Clos chapelle aux champs 30 /B1.30.15.05, 1200, Brussels, Belgium. anne-sophie.lambert@uclouvain.be.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3682-3394
Sophie CesInstitute of Health and Society (IRSS), Université Catholique de Louvain, Clos chapelle aux champs 30 /B1.30.15.05, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Espoir Bwenge MalembakaInstitute of Health and Society (IRSS), Université Catholique de Louvain, Clos chapelle aux champs 30 /B1.30.15.05, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Thérèse Van DurmeInstitute of Health and Society (IRSS), Université Catholique de Louvain, Clos chapelle aux champs 30 /B1.30.15.05, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
Anja DeclercqLUCAS and Center for Sociological Research, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Jean MacqInstitute of Health and Society (IRSS), Université Catholique de Louvain, Clos chapelle aux champs 30 /B1.30.15.05, 1200, Brussels, Belgium.
UCLouvain · BEKU Leuven · BEUniversité Catholique de Bukavu · CD

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOptimizing the organization of care for community-dwelling frail older people is an important issue in many Western countries. In Belgium, a series of complex, innovative, bottom-up interventions was recently designed and implemented to help frail older people live at home longer. As the effectiveness of these interventions may vary between different population groups according to their long-term care needs, they must be evaluated by comparison with a control group that has similar needs.

methodsThe goal was to identify target groups for these interventions and to establish control groups with similar needs and to explore, per group, the extent to which the utilization of long-term care is matched to needs. We merged two databases: a clinical prospective database and the routine administrative database for healthcare reimbursements. Through Principal Component Analysis followed by Clustering, the intervention group was first stratified into disability profiles. Per profile, comparable control groups for clinical variables were established, based on propensity scores. Using chi-squared tests and logistic regression analysis, long-term care utilization at baseline was then compared per profile and group studied.

resultsStratification highlighted five disability profiles: people with low-level limitations; people with limitations in instrumental activities of daily life and low-level of cognitive impairment; people with functional limitations; people with functional and cognitive impairments; and people with functional, cognitive, and behavioral problems. These profiles made it possible to identify long-term care needs. For instance, at baseline, those who needed more assistance with hygiene tasks also received more personal nursing care (P < 0.05). However, there were some important discrepancies between the need for long-term care and its utilization: while 21% of patients who were totally dependent for hygiene tasks received no personal nursing care, personal nursing care was received by 33% of patients who could perform hygiene tasks.

conclusionsThe disability profiles provide information on long-term care needs but not on the extent to which those needs are met. To assess the effectiveness of interventions, controls at baseline should have similar disability profiles and comparable long-term care utilization. To allow for large comparative effectiveness studies, these dimensions should ideally be available in routine databases.

Indexed as

Frail ElderlyIndependent LivingAgedAged, 80 and overBelgiumComparative Effectiveness ResearchDatabases, FactualFemaleForecastingHealth Services Needs and DemandHome Care ServicesHumansLong-Term CareMalePersons with DisabilitiesProspective StudiesAgingBelgiumBottom-up interventionsComparative effectiveness studiesStratification of population

Identifiers

PMID31234857
PMCPMC6592000
OpenAlexW2956018687

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.