You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Characteristics of the included home visiting programs

From: Effects of intensive home visiting programs for older people with poor health status: A systematic review

Author(s) Year Country Sample size nr I/C Health status participants Mean age Intervention program* Number of visits per year Duration of intervention in years Intervener Compliance
Dalby [21] 2000 Canada 73/69 self-reported functional impairment, or admission to hospital or bereavement in the previous 6 months 79 multidimensional assessment; a care plan was developed together with the primary care physician as needed (mean 18.9 hours) 1.2 primary care nurse not reported
Stuck [15] 2000 Switzerland 116/231 high-risk status based on six baseline predictors of functional deterioration 82 annual multidimensional assessment (with physical examinations); preventive home visits in collaboration with the project team's geriatricians 4 (mean 7.5) 2 trained public health nurse not reported
van Haastregt [23, 24] 2000 Netherlands 159/157 moderate impairments in mobility, score ≥ 3 on mobility control scale of the short-version sickness impact profile, or a history of recent falls (≥ 2 in previous 6 months) 77 multidimensional assessment with checklists and use of guidelines; systematic home visits 5 (mean 4.5) 1 trained community health nurse 46% for referrals and advice
Yamada [22] 2003 Japan 184/184 dependent in IADL, independent in ADL, and not rating their health as excellent 79 multidimensional assessment based on the MDS-HC; scheduled home visits, primary objective human interaction 4 (mean 5.1) 1.5 trained public health nurse 47% for advice
van Hout [19] 2005 Netherlands 331/320 self-reported health score in the worst quartile of at least two of six COOP-WONCA charts ≥ 75 multidimensional assessment with RAI-HC; systematic home visits, an individual care plan was set up complying with patient priorities together with the primary care practice 5 1.5 trained home nurse not (yet) reported
Bouman [10,11] 2007 Netherlands 160/170 self-reported poor health status at baseline, score 1–5 on a scale from 1–10 (very poor-excellent health) 76 multidimensional assessment with EasyCare questionnaire and checklists; systematic home visits, individual plan in agreement with the older persons 5.3 (mean 7.3) 1.5 trained home nurse 65% for referrals 58% for advice
  1. Notes: I, intervention group; C, control group; ADL, activities of daily living; LTC, Long Term Care; MDS-HC, minimal data set home care; COOP-WONCA, COOP functional health assessment charts; RAI-HC, resident assessment inventory home care.
  2. * The control group received usual care.
  3. † Mean over entire group of high-risk and low-risk older persons.