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
Multicenter Study
. 2007 Jan 11:7:2.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-7-2.

The PRO-AGE study: an international randomised controlled study of health risk appraisal for older persons based in general practice

Andreas E Stuck  1 , Kalpa Kharicha, Ulrike Dapp, Jennifer Anders, Wolfgang von Renteln-Kruse, Hans Peter Meier-Baumgartner, Steve Iliffe, Danielle Harari, Martin D Bachmann, Matthias Egger, Gerhard Gillmann, John C Beck, Cameron G Swift
Affiliations
Multicenter Study

The PRO-AGE study: an international randomised controlled study of health risk appraisal for older persons based in general practice

Andreas E Stuck et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: This paper describes the study protocol, the recruitment, and base-line data for evaluating the success of randomisation of the PRO-AGE (PRevention in Older people-Assessment in GEneralists' practices) project.

Methods/design: A group of general practitioners (GPs) in London (U.K.), Hamburg (Germany) and Solothurn (Switzerland) were trained in risk identification, health promotion, and prevention in older people. Their non-disabled older patients were invited to participate in a randomised controlled study. Participants allocated to the intervention group were offered the Health Risk Appraisal for Older Persons (HRA-O) instrument with a site-specific method for reinforcement (London: physician reminders in electronic medical record; Hamburg: one group session or two preventive home visits; Solothurn: six-monthly preventive home visits over a two-year period). Participants allocated to the control group received usual care. At each site, an additional group of GPs did not receive the training, and their eligible patients were invited to participate in a concurrent comparison group. Primary outcomes are self-reported health behaviour and preventative care use at one-year follow-up. In Solothurn, an additional follow-up was conducted at two years. The number of older persons agreeing to participate (% of eligible persons) in the randomised controlled study was 2503 (66.0%) in London, 2580 (53.6%) in Hamburg, and 2284 (67.5%) in Solothurn. Base-line findings confirm that randomisation of participants was successful, with comparable characteristics between intervention and control groups. The number of persons (% of eligible) enrolled in the concurrent comparison group was 636 (48.8%) in London, 746 (35.7%) in Hamburg, and 1171 (63.0%) in Solothurn.

Discussion: PRO-AGE is the first large-scale randomised controlled trial of health risk appraisal for older people in Europe. Its results will inform about the effects of implementing HRA-O with different methods of reinforcement.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Overall design of PRO-AGE study at the three participating sites (BADL denotes basic activities of daily living; HRA-O denotes Health Risk Appraisal for Older Persons; Pra denotes Probability of repeated admissions)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Recruitment and allocation of older persons in London (U.K.) (BADL denotes basic activities of daily living; HRA-O denotes Health Risk Appraisal for Older Persons; Pra denotes Probability of repeated admissions)
Figure 3
Figure 3
Recruitment and allocation of older persons in Hamburg (Germany) (BADL denotes basic activities of daily living; HRA-O denotes Health Risk Appraisal for Older Persons; Pra denotes Probability of repeated admissions)
Figure 4
Figure 4
Recruitment and allocation of older persons in Solothurn (Switzerland) (BADL denotes basic activities of daily living; HRA-O denotes Health Risk Appraisal for Older Persons; Pra denotes Probability of repeated admissions)
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Robbins L, Hall J. How to practice prospective medicine. Methodist Hospital of Indiana, Indianapolis, IN; 1990.
    1. Leigh JP, Richardson N, Beck R, Kerr C, Harrington H, Parcell CL, Fries JF. Randomised controlled study of a retiree health promotion programme. The Bank of America Study. Arch Intern Med. 1992;152:1201–1206. doi: 10.1001/archinte.152.6.1201. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Rand Corporation . Health Risk Appraisals and Medicare. Evidence report and evidence-based recommendations. US Department of Health and Human Services. Baltimore MD; 2000. http://www.rand.org/cgi-bin/health/showab.cgi?key=2003_406&year=2003
    1. Shekelle PG, Morton SC, Keeler EB. (Prepared by the Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No 290-02-0003) AHRQ Publication No 06-E006. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2006. Costs and benefits of health information technology, evidence report/technology assessment No. 132. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Breslow L, Beck JC, Morgenstern H, Fielding JE, Moore AA, Carmel M, Higa J. Development of a health risk appraisal for the elderly (HRA-E) Am J Health Promot. 1997;11:337–343. - PubMed

Publication types