6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      The Importance of Risk and Subgroup Analysis of Nonparticipants in a Geriatric Intervention Study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background. A major concern in intervention studies is the generalizability of the findings due to refusal of intended participants to actually take part. In studies including ill older people the number of those declining to participate may be large and the concern is therefore relevant. Objectives. To compare patients characteristics, rates of acute readmission, and mortality after one and six months among older persons who agreed and those who declined to participate in a randomized controlled trial and to describe subgroups of nonparticipants. Design. Comparative study based on a randomized controlled trial. Setting. University hospital in the Capital Region of Denmark. Participants. Patients ≥70 years discharged home after a short Emergency Department stay. 399 were requested to participate; 271 consented, whereas 128 refused. Results. Refusers were more likely to be readmitted ( p < 0.001) or die ( p = 0.006). The largest subgroup of refusers described as “too ill” had the highest risk of readmission (OR = 3.00, 95% CI = 1.61–5.47, p = 0.001) and of mortality within six months (OR = 3.50, 95% CI = 1.64–7.49, p = 0.002). However, this seems not to have affected the results of our randomized study. Conclusion. We recommend that intervention studies among older people or other fragile patient groups include analysis of relevant risk and subgroup analyses of refusers.

          Related collections

          Most cited references22

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Prevention of falls in the elderly trial (PROFET): a randomised controlled trial.

          Falls in elderly people are a common presenting complaint to accident and emergency departments. Current practice commonly focuses on the injury, with little systematic assessment of the underlying cause, functional consequences, and possibilities for future prevention. We undertook a randomised controlled study to assess the benefit of a structured inderdisciplinary assessment of people who have fallen in terms of further falls. Eligible patients were aged 65 years and older, lived in the community, and presented to an accident and emergency department with a fall. Patients assigned to the intervention group (n=184) underwent a detailed medical and occupational-therapy assessment with referral to relevant services if indicated; those assigned to the control group (n=213) received usual care only. The analyses were by intention to treat. Follow-up data were collected every 4 months for 1 year. At 12-month follow-up, 77% of both groups remained in the study. The total reported number of falls during this period was 183 in the intervention group compared with 510 in the control group (p=0.0002). The risk of falling was significantly reduced in the intervention group (odds ratio 0.39 [95% CI 0.23-0.66]) as was the risk of recurrent falls (0.33 [0.16-0.68]). In addition, the odds of admission to hospital were lower in the intervention group (0.61 [0.35-1.05]) whereas the decline in Barthel score with time was greater in the control group (p<0.00001). The study shows that an interdisciplinary approach to this high-risk population can significantly decrease the risk of further falls and limit functional impairment.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A randomized, controlled trial of comprehensive geriatric assessment and multidisciplinary intervention after discharge of elderly from the emergency department--the DEED II study.

            To study the effects of comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA) and multidisciplinary intervention on elderly patients sent home from the emergency department (ED). Prospective, randomized, controlled trial with 18 months of follow-up. Large medical school-affiliated public hospital in an urban setting in Sydney, Australia. A total of 739 patients aged 75 and older discharged home from the ED were randomized into two groups. Patients randomized to the treatment group underwent initial CGA and were followed at home for up to 28 days by a hospital-based multidisciplinary outreach team. The team implemented or coordinated recommendations. The control group received usual care. The primary outcome measure was all admissions, to the hospital within 30 days of the initial ED visit. Secondary outcome measures were elective and emergency admissions, and nursing home admissions and mortality. Additional outcomes included physical function (Barthel Index (total possible score=20) and instrumental activities of daily living (/12) and cognitive function (mental status questionnaire (/10)). Intervention patients had a lower rate of all admissions to the hospital during the first 30 days after the initial ED visit (16.5% vs 22.2%; P=.048), a lower rate of emergency admissions during the 18-month follow-up (44.4% vs 54.3%; P=.007), and longer time to first emergency admission (382 vs 348 days; P=.011). There was no difference in admission to nursing homes or mortality. Patients randomized to the intervention group maintained a greater degree of physical and mental function (Barthel Index change from baseline at 6 months: -0.25 vs -0.75; P<.001; mental status questionnaire change from baseline at 12 months: -0.21 vs -0.64; P<.001). CGA and multidisciplinary intervention can improve health outcomes of older people at risk of deteriorating health and admission to hospital. Patients aged 75 and older should be referred for CGA after an ED visit. Copyright 2004 American Geriatrics Society
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.

              (2004)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Scientifica (Cairo)
                Scientifica (Cairo)
                SCIENTIFICA
                Scientifica
                Hindawi Publishing Corporation
                2090-908X
                2016
                30 June 2016
                : 2016
                : 2787282
                Affiliations
                1Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager-Hvidovre, 2300 Copenhagen S, Denmark
                2RUBRIC, Clinic of Neurorehabilitation, TBI Unit, Rigshospitalet, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark
                3Institute of Public Health, University of Copenhagen and Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg, 2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark
                4Research Unit of Nursing, Institute of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, 5230 Odense M, Denmark
                Author notes

                Academic Editor: Evan P. Cherniack

                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1186-650X
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0205-4788
                Article
                10.1155/2016/2787282
                4944059
                27446634
                86432dcd-1f3d-4bfc-900a-b8ca09b0c1c3
                Copyright © 2016 Elizabeth Rosted et al.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 21 December 2015
                : 12 May 2016
                : 1 June 2016
                Categories
                Research Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article