LUCAS, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Institute of Public Health, Université Catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherche Santé et Société, Woluwe-Saint-Lambert, Belgium.
J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016 Nov;64(11):2251-2256. doi: 10.1111/jgs.14410. Epub 2016 Sep 27.
To examine the effects of home care interventions for frail older people in delaying permanent institutionalization during 6 months of follow-up.
Longitudinal quasi-experimental research study, part of a larger study called Protocol 3.
Community care in Belgium.
Frail older adults who received interventions (n = 4,607) and a comparison group of older adults who did not (n = 3,633). Organizations delivering the interventions included participants provided they were aged 65 and older, frail, and at risk of institutionalization. A comparison group was established consisting of frail older adults not receiving any interventions.
Home care interventions were identified as single component (occupational therapy (OT), psychological support, night care, day care) or multicomponent. The latter included case management (CM) in combination with OT and psychological support or physiotherapy, with rehabilitation services, or with OT alone.
The interRAI Home Care (HC) was completed at baseline and every 6 months. Data from a national database were used to establish a comparison group. Relative risks of institutionalization and death were calculated using Poisson regression for each type of intervention.
A subgroup analysis revealed that 1,999 older people had mild impairment, and 2,608 had moderate to severe impairment. Interventions providing only OT and interventions providing CM with rehabilitation services were effective in both subpopulations.
This research broadens the understanding of the effects of different types of community care interventions on the delay of institutionalization of frail older people. This information can help policy-makers to plan interventions to avoid early institutionalization.
在 6 个月的随访期间,考察家庭护理干预对衰弱老年人延缓永久性机构化的效果。
纵向准实验研究,是名为“方案 3”的更大研究的一部分。
比利时社区护理。
接受干预的衰弱老年人(n=4607)和未接受干预的老年对照组(n=3633)。提供干预措施的组织包括年龄在 65 岁及以上、衰弱且有机构化风险的参与者。建立了一个比较组,由未接受任何干预的衰弱老年人组成。
家庭护理干预被确定为单一组成部分(职业治疗(OT)、心理支持、夜间护理、日间护理)或多组分。后者包括与 OT 和心理支持联合的个案管理(CM),或与物理治疗、康复服务联合,或单独与 OT 联合。
在基线和每 6 个月进行一次 interRAI 家庭护理(HC)评估。使用国家数据库的数据来建立对照组。使用泊松回归计算每种干预类型的机构化和死亡的相对风险。
亚组分析显示,1999 名老年人有轻度障碍,2608 名老年人有中度至重度障碍。仅提供 OT 的干预和提供 CM 与康复服务的干预在这两个亚组中都有效。
这项研究拓宽了对不同类型社区护理干预对衰弱老年人机构化延迟效果的理解。这些信息可以帮助决策者规划干预措施以避免早期机构化。