The prevalence of non-pharmacological interventions in older homecare recipients: an overview from six European countries

Author:

Kooijmans Eline C. M.ORCID,Hoogendijk Emiel O.,Pokladníková Jitka,Smalbil Louk,Szczerbińska Katarzyna,Barańska Ilona,Ziuziakowska Adrianna,Fialová Daniela,Onder Graziano,Declercq Anja,Finne-Soveri Harriet,Hoogendoorn Mark,van Hout Hein P. J.,Joling Karlijn J.

Abstract

Abstract Purpose 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. Methods 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. Results 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%). Conclusions 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.

Funder

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme

Seventh Framework Programme

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Environmental Science

Reference44 articles.

1. European C, Directorate-General for Employment SA, Inclusion (2021) Long-term care report: trends, challenges and opportunities in an ageing society. Volume II, Country profiles: Publications Office

2. Leichsenring K, Billings J, Nies H (eds) (2013) Long-term care in europe: improving policy and practice. Palgrave McMillan, Houndmills

3. Tarricone RT, Agis D (2008) Home care in Europe: the solid facts: World Health Organization. Regional Office for Europe

4. Henrard JC, Ankri J, Frijters D, Carpenter I et al (2006) Proposal of a service delivery integration index of home care for older persons: application in several European cities. Int J Integr Care. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.159

5. Genet N, Boerma WGW, Kringos DS, Bouman A et al (2011) Home care in Europe: a systematic literature review. BMC Health Serv Res. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-207

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3