Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Amsterdam Public Health, Ageing and Later Life, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Eur Geriatr Med. 2024 Feb;15(1):243-252. doi: 10.1007/s41999-023-00868-w. Epub 2023 Oct 4.
Non-pharmacological interventions (NPIs) play an important role in the management of older people receiving homecare. However, little is known about how often specific NPIs are being used and to what extent usage varies between countries. The aim of the current study was to investigate the prevalence of NPIs in older homecare recipients in six European countries.
This is a cross-sectional study of older homecare recipients (65+) using baseline data from the longitudinal cohort study 'Identifying best practices for care-dependent elderly by Benchmarking Costs and outcomes of community care' (IBenC). The analyzed NPIs are based on the interRAI Home Care instrument, a comprehensive geriatric assessment instrument. The prevalence of 24 NPIs was analyzed in Belgium, Germany, Finland, Iceland, Italy and the Netherlands. NPIs from seven groups were considered: psychosocial interventions, physical activity, regular care interventions, special therapies, preventive measures, special aids and environmental interventions.
A total of 2884 homecare recipients were included. The mean age at baseline was 82.9 years and of all participants, 66.9% were female. The intervention with the highest prevalence in the study sample was 'emergency assistance available' (74%). Two other highly prevalent interventions were 'physical activity' (69%) and 'home nurse' (62%). Large differences between countries in the use of NPIs were observed and included, for example, 'going outside' (range 7-82%), 'home health aids' (range 12-93%), and 'physician visit' (range 24-94%).
The use of NPIs varied considerably between homecare users in different European countries. It is important to better understand the barriers and facilitators of use of these potentially beneficial interventions in order to design successful uptake strategies.
非药物干预（NPIs）在管理接受家庭护理的老年人方面发挥着重要作用。然而，对于特定 NPIs 的使用频率以及各国之间的使用差异程度知之甚少。本研究旨在调查 6 个欧洲国家老年家庭护理接受者中 NPIs 的使用情况。
这是一项对老年家庭护理接受者（65 岁以上）的横断面研究，使用纵向队列研究“通过基准测试确定社区护理中依赖护理的老年人的最佳实践来识别最佳实践”（IBenC）的基线数据。分析的 NPIs 基于综合老年评估工具 interRAI 家庭护理仪器。分析了比利时、德国、芬兰、冰岛、意大利和荷兰 24 项 NPIs 的流行情况。考虑了来自七个组别的 NPIs：心理社会干预、身体活动、定期护理干预、特殊治疗、预防措施、特殊辅助器具和环境干预。
共纳入 2884 名家庭护理接受者。基线时的平均年龄为 82.9 岁，所有参与者中，66.9%为女性。研究样本中干预措施流行度最高的是“紧急援助可用”（74%）。另外两项高度流行的干预措施是“身体活动”（69%）和“家庭护士”（62%）。观察到各国之间在 NPIs 使用方面存在很大差异，包括“外出”（7-82%）、“家庭健康辅助器具”（12-93%）和“医生就诊”（24-94%）。
不同欧洲国家的家庭护理接受者对 NPIs 的使用差异很大。了解这些潜在有益干预措施使用的障碍和促进因素非常重要，以便设计成功的采用策略。
