Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35659196›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2022

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of a personalised health promotion intervention enabling independence in older people with mild frailty ('HomeHealth') compared to treatment as usual: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Rachael Frost, Christina Avgerinou, Claire Goodman, Andrew Clegg, Jane Hopkins, Rebecca L Gould, Benjamin Gardner, Louise Marston, Rachael Hunter, Jill Manthorpe and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Selection and reporting of usual care comparators when designing primary care trials of complex health interventions: a systematic review.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

15 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Rachael FrostResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK. rachael.frost@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3523-0052
Christina AvgerinouResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Claire GoodmanCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Andrew CleggAcademic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research, University of Leeds, Bradford Institute for Health Research, Bradford, UK.
Jane HopkinsPatient and Public Involvement Member, London, UK.
Rebecca L GouldDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Benjamin GardnerDepartment of Psychology, King's College London, London, UK.
Louise MarstonResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Rachael HunterResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
Jill ManthorpeNIHR Policy Research Unit in Health and Social Care Workforce, King's College London, London, UK.
Claudia CooperDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Dawn A SkeltonDepartment of Physiotherapy and Paramedicine, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
Vari M DrennanCentre for Health and Social Care Research, Kingston University & St George's University, London, UK.
Pip LoganFaculty of Medicine & Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Kate WaltersResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.
University College London · GBKing's College London · GBGlasgow Caledonian University · GBSt George's, University of London · GBUniversity of Hertfordshire · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFrailty is clinically associated with multiple adverse outcomes, including reduced quality of life and functioning, falls, hospitalisations, moves to long-term care and mortality. Health services commonly focus on the frailest, with highest levels of need. However, evidence suggests that frailty is likely to be more reversible in people who are less frail. Evidence is emerging on what interventions may help prevent or reduce frailty, such as resistance exercises and multi-component interventions, but few interventions are based on behaviour change theory. There is little evidence of cost-effectiveness. Previously, we co-designed a new behaviour change health promotion intervention ("HomeHealth") to support people with mild frailty. HomeHealth is delivered by trained voluntary sector support workers over six months who support older people to work on self-identified goals to maintain their independence, such as strength and balance exercises, nutrition, mood and enhancing social engagement. The service was well received in our feasibility randomised controlled trial and showed promising effects upon outcomes.

aimTo test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the HomeHealth intervention on maintaining independence in older people with mild frailty in comparison to treatment as usual (TAU).

methodsSingle-blind individually randomised controlled trial comparing the HomeHealth intervention to TAU. We will recruit 386 participants from general practices and the community across three English regions. Participants are included if they are community-dwelling, aged 65 + , with mild frailty according to the Clinical Frailty Scale. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to receive HomeHealth or TAU for 6 months. The primary outcome is independence in activities of daily living (modified Barthel Index) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include instrumental activities of daily living, quality of life, frailty, wellbeing, psychological distress, loneliness, cognition, capability, falls, carer burden, service use, costs and mortality. Outcomes will be analysed using linear mixed models, controlling for baseline Barthel score and site. A health economic analysis and embedded mixed-methods process evaluation will be conducted. DISCUSSION: This trial will provide definitive evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a home-based, individualised intervention to maintain independence in older people with mild frailty in comparison to TAU, that could be implemented at scale if effective.

trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN54268283 . Registered 06/04/2020.

Indexed as

FrailtyActivities of Daily LivingAgedCost-Benefit AnalysisHealth PromotionHumansQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSingle-Blind Method(3-10) frailtyAgeingBehavioural changeCommunity-dwellingPreventionPrimary careRCT

Identifiers

PMID35659196
PMCPMC9166243
OpenAlexW4281750095

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.