Home-based health promotion for older people with mild frailty: the HomeHealth intervention development and feasibility RCT

Author:

Walters Kate1ORCID,Frost Rachael1ORCID,Kharicha Kalpa1ORCID,Avgerinou Christina1ORCID,Gardner Benjamin2ORCID,Ricciardi Federico3ORCID,Hunter Rachael1ORCID,Liljas Ann1ORCID,Manthorpe Jill4,Drennan Vari5ORCID,Wood John1ORCID,Goodman Claire6ORCID,Jovicic Ana1,Iliffe Steve1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK

2. Department of Psychology, King’s College London, London, UK

3. Department of Statistical Science, University College London, London, UK

4. Social Care Workforce Research Unit, King’s College London, London, UK

5. Centre for Health and Social Care Research, Kingston University and St George’s, University of London, London, UK

6. Centre for Research in Primary and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK

Abstract

BackgroundMild frailty or pre-frailty is common and yet is potentially reversible. Preventing progression to worsening frailty may benefit individuals and lower health/social care costs. However, we know little about effective approaches to preventing frailty progression.Objectives(1) To develop an evidence- and theory-based home-based health promotion intervention for older people with mild frailty. (2) To assess feasibility, costs and acceptability of (i) the intervention and (ii) a full-scale clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness randomised controlled trial (RCT).DesignEvidence reviews, qualitative studies, intervention development and a feasibility RCT with process evaluation.Intervention developmentTwo systematic reviews (including systematic searches of 14 databases and registries, 1990–2016 and 1980–2014), a state-of-the-art review (from inception to 2015) and policy review identified effective components for our intervention. We collected data on health priorities and potential intervention components from semistructured interviews and focus groups with older people (aged 65–94 years) (n = 44), carers (n = 12) and health/social care professionals (n = 27). These data, and our evidence reviews, fed into development of the ‘HomeHealth’ intervention in collaboration with older people and multidisciplinary stakeholders. ‘HomeHealth’ comprised 3–6 sessions with a support worker trained in behaviour change techniques, communication skills, exercise, nutrition and mood. Participants addressed self-directed independence and well-being goals, supported through education, skills training, enabling individuals to overcome barriers, providing feedback, maximising motivation and promoting habit formation.Feasibility RCTSingle-blind RCT, individually randomised to ‘HomeHealth’ or treatment as usual (TAU).SettingCommunity settings in London and Hertfordshire, UK.ParticipantsA total of 51 community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 years with mild frailty.Main outcome measuresFeasibility – recruitment, retention, acceptability and intervention costs. Clinical and health economic outcome data at 6 months included functioning, frailty status, well-being, psychological distress, quality of life, capability and NHS and societal service utilisation/costs.ResultsWe successfully recruited to target, with good 6-month retention (94%). Trial procedures were acceptable with minimal missing data. Individual randomisation was feasible. The intervention was acceptable, with good fidelity and modest delivery costs (£307 per patient). A total of 96% of participants identified at least one goal, which were mostly exercise related (73%). We found significantly better functioning (Barthel Index +1.68;p = 0.004), better grip strength (+6.48 kg;p = 0.02), reduced psychological distress (12-item General Health Questionnaire –3.92;p = 0.01) and increased capability-adjusted life-years [+0.017; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.001 to 0.031] at 6 months in the intervention arm than the TAU arm, with no differences in other outcomes. NHS and carer support costs were variable but, overall, were lower in the intervention arm than the TAU arm. The main limitation was difficulty maintaining outcome assessor blinding.ConclusionsEvidence is lacking to inform frailty prevention service design, with no large-scale trials of multidomain interventions. From stakeholder/public perspectives, new frailty prevention services should be personalised and encompass multiple domains, particularly socialising and mobility, and can be delivered by trained non-specialists. Our multicomponent health promotion intervention was acceptable and delivered at modest cost. Our small study shows promise for improving clinical outcomes, including functioning and independence. A full-scale individually RCT is feasible.Future workA large, definitive RCT of the HomeHealth service is warranted.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014010370 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN11986672.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 73. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Funder

Health Technology Assessment programme

Publisher

National Institute for Health Research

Subject

Health Policy

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