Walters, K, Frost, R, Kharicha, K, Avgerinou, C, Gardner, B, Ricciardi, F, Hunter, R, Liljas, A, Manthorpe, J, Drennan, V, Wood, J, Goodman, C, Jovicic, A and Iliffe, S (2017) Home-based health promotion for older people with mild frailty: The homehealth intervention development and feasibility RCT. Health Technology Assessment, 21 (73). pp. 1-127. ISSN 1366-5278

Preview

Text Home-based health promotion for older people with mild frailty - the home-health intervention development and feasibility RCT.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

Background: Mild 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). Design: Evidence reviews, qualitative studies, intervention development and a feasibility RCT with process evaluation. Intervention development: Two 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 RCT: Single-blind RCT, individually randomised to ‘HomeHealth’ or treatment as usual (TAU). Setting: Community settings in London and Hertfordshire, UK. Participants: A total of 51 community-dwelling adults aged ≥ 65 years with mild frailty. Main outcome measures: Feasibility – 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. Results: We 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. Conclusions: Evidence 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 work: A large, definitive RCT of the HomeHealth service is warranted.

Item Type:	Article
Uncontrolled Keywords:	Humans; Exercise; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Health Promotion; Home Care Services; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Patient Satisfaction; Female; Male; Independent Living; Frailty; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Exercise; Female; Frailty; Health Promotion; Home Care Services; Humans; Independent Living; Male; Patient Satisfaction; 0806 Information Systems; 0807 Library and Information Studies; 1117 Public Health and Health Services; Health Policy & Services
Subjects:	R Medicine > RA Public aspects of medicine
Divisions:	Nursing & Allied Health
Publisher:	National Institute for Health and Care Research
SWORD Depositor:	A Symplectic
Date Deposited:	05 Dec 2023 14:50
Last Modified:	05 Dec 2023 15:00
DOI or ID number:	10.3310/hta21730
URI:	https://researchonline.ljmu.ac.uk/id/eprint/22038

View Item