You are viewing the site in preview mode

Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 5 Effects of home visits on outcome measures of the included trials for the intervention and control group

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

Author(s), year Country\I/C Sample Size Followed up Follow-up months Mortality % Functional status % dependent Hospital admissions* Nursing home admission
      ADL IADL mean mean days % users mean days
Dalby [21], 2000 Canada 73/69 59/54 14 10/4    0.4/0.3 19/11 0/1  
Stuck [15], 2000 Switzerland 116/231 82/188 36 29/18 39/38 61/63    27/14  
van Haastregt [23,24], 2000 Netherlands 159/157 120/115 18 6/9 33.1/31.5 0.5/0.6 7/8   
Yamada [22], 2003 Japan 184/184 160/149 18 6/8 67/65§      
Bouman [12,13], 2007 Netherlands 160/170 139/154 24 18/14 25/26 72/65 1.0/0.8 8/8 6/7 14/14
  1. Notes: I, intervention group; C, control group; ADL, activities of daily living; IADL, instrumental (household) activities of daily living.
  2. * Mean number of admissions and length of stay per person in the intervention and control group, respectively, during the follow-up period.
  3. † Mean percentage of users and length of stay per person in the intervention and control group, respectively, during the follow-up period.
  4. ‡ Frenchay activities index (scores 13–52, highest score is most favorable).
  5. § Any problem in usual activities.
  6. (The results from the study by van Hout et al. [19] have not been published yet; the estimates are not available.)