Markle-Reid Maureen, Weir Robin, Browne Gina, Roberts Jacqueline, Gafni Amiram, Henderson Sandra
Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, Health Research Personnel Development Fund, Ontario, Canada.
J Adv Nurs. 2006 May;54(3):381-95. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2006.03817.x.
This paper reports a study evaluating the comparative effects and costs of a proactive nursing health promotion intervention in addition to usual home care for older people compared with usual home care services alone.
An ageing population, budget constraints and technological advances in many countries have increased the pressure on home care resources. The result is a shift in nursing services from health promotion to meet the more pressing need for postacute care. For frail older people with long-term needs, these changes combine to create a fragmented system of health service delivery, characterized by providing nursing on demand rather than proactively.
A two-armed, single-blind, randomized controlled trial was carried out with older people > or =75 years and eligible for personal support services through a home care programme in Ontario, Canada. Participants were randomly allocated either to usual home care (control) or to a nursing (experimental) group. In addition to usual home care, the nursing group received a health assessment combined with regular home visits or telephone contacts, health education about management of illness, coordination of community services, and use of empowerment strategies to enhance independence. The data were collected in 2001-2002.
Of the 288 older people who were randomly allocated at baseline, 242 (84%) completed the study (120 nursing group; 122 control group). Proactively providing older people with nursing health promotion, compared with providing nursing services on-demand, resulted in better mental health functioning (P = 0.009), a reduction in depression (P = 0.009), and enhanced perceptions of social support (P = 0.009) at no additional cost from a societal perspective.
Home based nursing health promotion, proactively provided to frail older people with chronic health needs, enhances quality of life while not increasing the overall costs of health care. The results underscore the need to re-invest in nursing services for health promotion for older clients receiving home care.
本文报告一项研究,评估除常规居家护理外,针对老年人的积极护理健康促进干预措施相较于单纯常规居家护理服务的比较效果和成本。
许多国家的人口老龄化、预算限制和技术进步增加了居家护理资源的压力。结果是护理服务从健康促进转向满足急性后期护理的更迫切需求。对于有长期需求的体弱老年人,这些变化共同导致了一个分散的医疗服务提供系统,其特点是按需提供护理而非主动提供。
对年龄≥75岁且有资格通过加拿大安大略省的居家护理计划获得个人支持服务的老年人进行了一项双臂、单盲、随机对照试验。参与者被随机分配到常规居家护理组(对照组)或护理组(试验组)。除常规居家护理外,护理组还接受了健康评估,包括定期家访或电话联系、疾病管理的健康教育、社区服务协调以及使用赋权策略以增强独立性。数据于2001年至2002年收集。
在基线时随机分配的288名老年人中,242名(84%)完成了研究(护理组120名;对照组122名)。从社会角度来看,主动为老年人提供护理健康促进,与按需提供护理服务相比,可带来更好的心理健康状况(P = 0.009)、抑郁减轻(P = 0.009)以及社会支持感增强(P = 0.009),且不增加额外成本。
主动为有慢性健康需求的体弱老年人提供居家护理健康促进,可提高生活质量,同时不增加医疗保健的总体成本。结果强调了有必要对接受居家护理的老年客户的健康促进护理服务进行重新投资。