A systematic review of the evidence on home care reablement services

Objective To determine whether publically funded ‘reablement services’ have any effect on patient health or use of services. Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials and non-randomized studies in which reablement interventions were compared to no care or usual care in people referred to public funded personal care services. Data sources included: Cochrane central register of controlled trials, EPOC register of studies, trials registers, Medline, Embase, and Cinhal. Searches were from 2000 up to end February 2015. Setting Not applicable. Participants Investigators’ definition of the target population for reablement interventions. Main outcome measures Use of publically-funded personal care services and dependence in personal activities of daily living (PADL). Results We found no studies fulfilling our inclusion criteria that assessed the effectiveness of reablement interventions. We did note the lack of an agreed understanding of the nature of reablement. Conclusions Reablement is an ill-defined intervention targeted towards an ill-defined and potentially highly heterogeneous population/ patient group. There is no evidence to suggest it is effective at either of its goals, increasing personal independence or reducing use of personal care services

Interventions to reduce dependency in personal activities of daily living in community-dwelling adults who use homecare services: protocol for a systematic review

Background There is a growing demand for services whereby individuals receive assistance from care workers for personal care within the home. This has led to the development of re-ablement or restorative homecare services that provide time-limited input aimed at reducing dependency in personal activities of daily living, and preventing or delaying the need for further homecare support. However, little is currently known about how such interventions are configured, or how they may affect individuals’ ability to carry out personal care independently. Methods/Design We will seek to identify studies that compare an intervention designed to reduce dependency in personal activities of daily living with routine input or usual care as the control. We will include randomised controlled trials, nonrandomised controlled trials, and controlled before and after studies. We will also include interrupted time series studies. We shall search electronic databases in addition to searching for ongoing and unpublished studies, and where appropriate will contact key authors. Two reviewers will independently screen articles for inclusion; will assess risk of bias using quality assessment tools; and will carry out data extraction using pre-prepared forms. Any disagreements, at any stage, will be resolved by discussion and the involvement of a third reviewer if needed. We will produce a narrative summary of the results. A meta-analysis will be conducted if sufficient data are available of appropriate quality and comparability. Discussion The findings from this review will inform future practice within homecare re-ablement services; will inform policy decisions about the structure, organisation and content of such services; and will identify areas where further research is warranted

A randomised controlled trial of the Home Independence Program, an Australian restorative home-care programme for older adults

A randomised controlled trial was conducted to test the effectiveness of the Home Independence Program (HIP), a restorative home-care programme for older adults, in reducing the need for ongoing services. Between June 2005 and August 2007, 750 older adults referred to a homecare service for assistance with their personal care participated in the study and received HIP or ‘usual’ home-care services. Service outcomes were compared at 3 and 12 months. Subgroups of 150 from each group were also compared on functional and quality of life measures. Data were analysed by ‘intention-to-treat’ and ‘as-treated’. The intention-to-treat analysis showed at 3 and 12 months that the HIP group was significantly less likely to need ongoing personal care [Odds ratio (OR) = 0.18, 95% CI = 0.13–0.26, P < 0.001; OR = 0.22, 95% CI = 0.15–0.32, P < 0.001]. Both subgroups showed improvements on the individual outcome measures over time with the only significant differences being found at 12 months for Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL) in the as-treated analysis. Contamination of the control group by an increased emphasis on independence across the home-care agency involved, together with other methodological problems encountered, is thought to account for the few differences between groups in individual outcomes. Despite no difference between the groups over time in their overall ADL scores, a significantly smaller proportion of the HIP group required assistance with bathing/showering, the most common reason for referral, at 3 and 12 months.The results support earlier findings that participating in a short-term restorative programme appears to reduce the need for ongoing home care. The implementation of such programmes more broadly throughout Australia could substantially offset the projected increase in demand for home care associated with the five-fold projected increase in numbers of the oldest old expected over the next 40 years