Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2000 Mar 18;320(7237):754-8.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7237.754.

Effects of preventive home visits to elderly people living in the community: systematic review

J C van Haastregt  1 , J P Diederiks, E van Rossum, L P de Witte, H F Crebolder
Affiliations

Effects of preventive home visits to elderly people living in the community: systematic review

J C van Haastregt et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Objective: To assess the effects of preventive home visits to elderly people living in the community.

Design: Systematic review.

Setting: 15 trials retrieved from Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane controlled trial register.

Main outcome measures: Physical function, psychosocial function, falls, admissions to institutions, and mortality.

Results: Considerable differences in the methodological quality of the 15 trials were found, but in general the quality was considered adequate. Favourable effects of the home visits were observed in 5 out of 12 trials measuring physical functioning, 1 out of 8 measuring psychosocial function, 2 out of 6 measuring falls, 2 out of 7 measuring admissions to institutions, and 3 of 13 measuring mortality. None of the trials reported negative effects.

Conclusions: No clear evidence was found in favour of the effectiveness of preventive home visits to elderly people living in the community. It seems essential that the effectiveness of such visits is improved, but if this cannot be achieved consideration should be given to discontinuing these visits.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

References

    1. Stuck AE, Siu AL, Wieland GD, Adams J, Rubenstein LZ. Comprehensive geriatric assessment: a meta-analysis of controlled trials. Lancet. 1993;342:1032–1036. - PubMed
    1. Cook DJ, Sackett DL, Spitzer WO. Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews or randomized control trials in health care from the Potsdam consultation on meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:167–171. - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Olkin I. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: a concern for standards. JAMA. 1995;274:1962–1963. - PubMed
    1. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309:1286–1291. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Van Tulder MW, Assendelft WJJ, Koes BW, Bouter LM the editorial board of the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. Method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Collaboration back review group for spinal disorders. Spine. 1997;22:2323–2330. - PubMed

Publication types