Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42153520›Full record

Trial reportHealth technology assessment (Winchester, England)2026

Enabling health and maintaining independence for older people at home: the 'HomeHealth' Randomised Controlled Trial.

Kate Walters, Rachael Frost, Yolanda Barrado-Martín, Sarah Kalwarowsky, Louise Marston, Shengning Pan, Christina Avgerinou, Claire Goodman, Andrew Clegg, Benjamin Gardner and 15 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health technology assessment (Winchester, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

25 authors.

Kate WaltersResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-2173-2430
Rachael FrostResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3523-0052
Yolanda Barrado-MartínResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9912-6345
Sarah KalwarowskyResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0009-0009-3817-0244
Louise MarstonResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9973-1131
Shengning PanResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8895-9993
Christina AvgerinouResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1445-1676
Claire GoodmanCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care (CRIPACC), University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8938-4893
Andrew CleggAcademic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5972-1097
Benjamin GardnerDepartment of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1223-5934
Jane HopkinsPublic Contributors, London and Birmingham, UK.
Farah MahmoodResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0009-0001-9161-0140
Rebecca L GouldDivision of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9283-1626
Rekha ElaswarapouPublic Contributors, London and Birmingham, UK.
Claire JowettPublic Contributors, London and Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1392-0979
Dawn A SkeltonDepartment of Physiotherapy and Paramedicine, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6223-9840
Vari M DrennanCentre for Applied Health and Social Care Research, Kingston University, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8915-5185
Claudia CooperWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2777-7616
Kalpa KharichaNIHR Policy Research Unit in Health and Social Care Workforce, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2975-2084
Pip LoganFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6657-2381
Matthew PrescotAcademic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7397-9422
Gillian ThorntonAcademic Unit for Ageing and Stroke Research, Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Bradford, UK.
Tasmin RookesResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6330-7059
Jessica CatchpoleResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7901-1797
Rachael HunterResearch Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7447-8934

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: HomeHealth is a home-based, voluntary sector service supporting older people with mild frailty to maintain independence through behaviour change. Support workers discuss the person's priorities and enable setting/achieving goals around mobility, nutrition, socialising and/or psychological well-being. Aims: We tested clinical and cost-effectiveness of HomeHealth for maintaining independence in older people with mild frailty in a randomised controlled trial. Methods: Design: Single-blind, parallel randomised controlled trial open between 18 January 2021 and 4 July 2023, with mixed-methods process evaluation. Setting: Community-dwelling older people aged 65+ years with mild frailty from 27 general practices and community settings in London, Yorkshire and Hertfordshire. Randomisation: Participants were randomised 1 : 1 to receive HomeHealth or treatment as usual. Outcomes: Primary outcome was independence in activities of daily living (modified Barthel Index), analysed using linear mixed models. Secondary outcomes included frailty phenotype score, extended activities of daily living, well-being, psychological distress, loneliness, cognition, falls and mortality. Health economic outcomes included quality of life, capability and service use, including hospital admissions. Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves and cost-effectiveness planes were used to represent the probability of cost-effectiveness compared to treatment as usual. Process evaluation: We conducted semistructured interviews with participants receiving the intervention, HomeHealth workers and other stakeholders supporting service delivery. Interviews were thematically analysed. Fidelity of audio-recorded appointments was assessed by two independent raters. We evaluated potential mechanisms of impact using data from appointments attended, types of goals set and progress towards goals. Findings: We recruited 388 participants, mean age 81.4 years (standard deviation 6.5), 64% female and 94% White British/European. HomeHealth did not improve Barthel Index scores at 12 months (0.250, 95% confidence interval -0.932 to 1.432). At 6 months, we found small significant reductions in psychological distress (-1.237, 95% confidence interval -2.127 to -0.348), and frailty phenotype score (-0.252, 95% confidence interval -0.487 to -0.017). At 12 months, we found significant improvements in well-being (1.449, 95% confidence interval 0.124 to 2.775), reduced unplanned admissions (incidence rate ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.92) with lower associated costs (-£586/participant, 95% confidence interval -351 to -821). There were no differences in other outcomes. HomeHealth dominates treatment as usual with a negative point estimate for incremental costs (-796, 95% confidence interval -2016 to 424), positive point estimate for incremental quality-adjusted life-years (0.009, -0.021 to 0.039) and high probability of cost-effectiveness. Process evaluation: Sixty-four semistructured interviews were completed, including 49 participants and 15 HomeHealth workers/stakeholders. The service was acceptable and safe, with good fidelity of delivery. Participants made progress on personalised goals, most working on enhancing mobility. They found the service empowering, and received emotional/practical support. Engagement was more challenging when participants identified no need for change, had significant memory impairment or new/declining illness. Flexibility around varying symptoms and incorporating behaviour change into existing routines promoted engagement. Conclusion: HomeHealth did not improve independent functioning for older people with mild frailty. There were small significant improvements in frailty status, psychological distress and well-being and a 35% reduction in unplanned admissions, with high probability of cost-effectiveness. Limitations: We used a pragmatic design with intervention delivery in real-world settings during/after the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially with more variability in delivery. Our findings might not apply to other geographical settings/healthcare systems. Funding: This synopsis presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme as award number NIHR128334.

Indexed as

Frail ElderlyHome Care ServicesIndependent LivingActivities of Daily LivingAgedAged, 80 and overAging in PlaceCost-Benefit AnalysisCost-Effectiveness AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleQuality of LifeSingle-Blind MethodHEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATIONHEALTH PROMOTIONLATER LIFEMILD FRAILTYPREVENTIONPROCESS EVALUATIONRANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIALWELL-BEING

Identifiers

PMID42153520
PMCPMC13202625

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.