IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0089257.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preventive Home Visits for Mortality, Morbidity, and Institutionalization in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Evan Mayo-Wilson
  • Sean Grant
  • Jennifer Burton
  • Amanda Parsons
  • Kristen Underhill
  • Paul Montgomery

Abstract

Background: Home visits for older adults aim to prevent cognitive and functional impairment, thus reducing institutionalization and mortality. Visitors may provide information, investigate untreated problems, encourage medication compliance, and provide referrals to services. Methods and Findings: Data Sources: Ten databases including CENTRAL and Medline searched through December 2012. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials enrolling community-dwelling persons without dementia aged over 65 years. Interventions included visits at home by a health or social care professional that were not related to hospital discharge. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Two authors independently extracted data. Outcomes were pooled using random effects. Main Outcomes and Measures: Mortality, institutionalization, hospitalization, falls, injuries, physical functioning, cognitive functioning, quality of life, and psychiatric illness. Results: Sixty-four studies with 28642 participants were included. Home visits were not associated with absolute reductions in mortality at longest follow-up, but some programs may have small relative effects (relative risk = 0.93 [0.87 to 0.99]; absolute risk = 0.00 [−0.01 to 0.00]). There was moderate quality evidence of no overall effect on the number of people institutionalized (RR = 1.02 [0.88 to 1.18]) or hospitalized (RR = 0.96 [0.91 to 1.01]). There was high quality evidence for number of people who fell, which is consistent with no effect or a small effect (odds ratio = 0.86 [0.73 to 1.01]), but there was no evidence that these interventions increased independent living. There was low and very low quality evidence of effects for quality of life (standardised mean difference = −0.06 [−0.11 to −0.01]) and physical functioning (SMD = −0.10 [−0.17 to −0.03]) respectively, but these may not be clinically important. Conclusions: Home visiting is not consistently associated with differences in mortality or independent living, and investigations of heterogeneity did not identify any programs that are associated with consistent benefits. Due to poor reporting of intervention components and delivery, we cannot exclude the possibility that some programs may be effective.

Suggested Citation

  • Evan Mayo-Wilson & Sean Grant & Jennifer Burton & Amanda Parsons & Kristen Underhill & Paul Montgomery, 2014. "Preventive Home Visits for Mortality, Morbidity, and Institutionalization in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-1, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0089257
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089257
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0089257
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0089257&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0089257?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Anna I I King & Michal L Boyd & Lynelle Dagley & Deborah L Raphael, 2018. "Implementation of a gerontology nurse specialist role in primary health care: Health professional and older adult perspectives," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3-4), pages 807-818, February.
    2. Norman Bannenberg & Oddvar Førland & Tor Iversen & Martin Karlsson & Henning Øien, 2021. "Preventive Home Visits," American Journal of Health Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 7(4), pages 457-496.
    3. Jacqueline J Suijker & Janet L MacNeil-Vroomen & Marjon van Rijn & Bianca M Buurman & Sophia E de Rooij & Eric P Moll van Charante & Judith E Bosmans, 2017. "Cost-effectiveness of nurse-led multifactorial care to prevent or postpone new disabilities in community-living older people: Results of a cluster randomized trial," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(4), pages 1-16, April.
    4. Magnus Zingmark & Fredrik Norström & Lars Lindholm & Synneve Dahlin-Ivanoff & Susanne Gustafsson, 2019. "Modelling long-term cost-effectiveness of health promotion for community-dwelling older people," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 395-404, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0089257. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.