Table 5

Effects of home visits on outcome measures of the included trials for the intervention and control group

Author(s), year Country\I/C

Sample Size

Followed up

Follow-up months

Mortality %

Functional status % dependent

Hospital admissions*

Nursing home admission

ADL

IADL

mean

mean days

% users

mean days


Dalby [21], 2000 Canada

73/69

59/54

14

10/4

0.4/0.3

19/11

0/1

Stuck [15], 2000 Switzerland

116/231

82/188

36

29/18

39/38

61/63

27/14

van Haastregt [23,24], 2000 Netherlands

159/157

120/115

18

6/9

33.1/31.5

0.5/0.6

7/8

Yamada [22], 2003 Japan

184/184

160/149

18

6/8

67/65§

Bouman [12,13], 2007 Netherlands

160/170

139/154

24

18/14

25/26

72/65

1.0/0.8

8/8

6/7

14/14


Notes: I, intervention group; C, control group; ADL, activities of daily living; IADL, instrumental (household) activities of daily living.

* Mean number of admissions and length of stay per person in the intervention and control group, respectively, during the follow-up period.

† Mean percentage of users and length of stay per person in the intervention and control group, respectively, during the follow-up period.

‡ Frenchay activities index (scores 13–52, highest score is most favorable).

§ Any problem in usual activities.

(The results from the study by van Hout et al. [19] have not been published yet; the estimates are not available.)

Bouman et al. BMC Health Services Research 2008 8:74   doi:10.1186/1472-6963-8-74

Open Data