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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2018;22(9):1051-1059.
doi: 10.1007/s12603-018-1101-x.

The Effectiveness of a PRoactive Multicomponent Intervention Program on Disability in Independently Living Older People: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

The Effectiveness of a PRoactive Multicomponent Intervention Program on Disability in Independently Living Older People: A Randomized Controlled Trial

M R J van Lieshout et al. J Nutr Health Aging. 2018.

Abstract

Background: There is an increase in functional limitations and a decline in physical and mental well-being with age. Very few effective lifestyle interventions are available to prevent adverse outcomes such as disability in (pre-) frail older people. The effectiveness of an interdisciplinary multicomponent intervention program to prevent disability in older people in the community was tested.

Method: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a one-year follow-up was conducted in the Netherlands. Community-dwelling pre-frail older people aged 65 years and over were invited to participate. Frailty was measured with the Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) and categorized into non-frail (GFI=0), pre-frail (GFI = 1-3) and frail (GFI ≥ 4). The intervention program consisted of four components: a medication review, physical fitness, social skills, and nutrition.

Outcomes: The primary outcome was activity of daily living (ADL) measured with the Katz-6. Secondary outcomes were quality of life (SF-12) and healthcare consumption such as hospital admission, nursing home admission and primary care visits. Additional outcomes measured in the intervention group were physical fitness, Instrumental Activities of Daily Living (IADL), muscle strength, walking speed, functional capacity, mobility, feelings of depression and loneliness and nutritional status. The data were collected at baseline, after each intervention component and at a 12-month follow-up. An intention to treat analysis was used.

Results: In total, there were 290 participants, and 217 (74.8%) completed the study. The mean age was 74 (SD: 7.2), most were pre-frail (59.9%), the majority were female (55.2%), and the individuals were not living alone (61.4%). After the 12-month follow-up, the median Katz-6 score did not change significantly between the two groups; adjusted Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.96 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.39-2.35, p-value 0.92). No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups for quality of life and healthcare consumption. Among the participants in the intervention group, IADL (Friedman's test p <=0.04, X2 =6.50), walking speed (Friedman's test p <0.001, X2 =19.09) and functional capacity (Friedman's test p <0.001, X2 =33.29) improved significantly after the one-year follow-up. Right-hand grip strength improved immediately after completion of the intervention (Wilcoxon signed-rank test p=0.00, z= -3.39) but not after the 12-month follow-up.

Conclusion: The intervention program did not significantly improve daily functioning, quality of life and healthcare consumption among (pre) frail community-dwelling older persons at the one-year follow-up. Participants in the intervention group experienced improvements in walking speed, functional capacity and instrumental activities of daily living. More research is needed to better understand why may benefit and how to identify the target population.

Keywords: Disability; community-dwelling older people; frailty; multicomponent intervention.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
SPRY-program flow diagram

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Nikolich-Žugich J., et al, Preparing for an aging world: engaging biogerontologists, geriatricians, and the society, The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 2015, glv164 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Health Council of the Netherlands, Prevention in the elderly: Focus on functioning in daily life, 2009, Health Council of the Netherlands. The Hague, the Netherlands
    1. Fried L.P., et al. Frailty in older adults evidence for a phenotype. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences. 2001;56.3:M146–M157. 10.1093/gerona/56.3.M146 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Fried L. F.L., Darer J., Williamson J.D., Anderson G. Untangling the concepts of disability, frailty and comorbidity: implications for improved targeting and care. J Gerontol Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004;59:255. 10.1093/gerona/59.3.M255 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Clegg A., et al, Frailty in elderly people, The Lancet 381.9868, 2013, 752–762 - PMC - PubMed

Uncited references

    1. Troosters T. G.R., Decramer M. Six minute walking distance in healthy elderly subjects. Eur Respir J. 1999;14(2):270–274. 10.1034/j.1399-3003.1999.14b06.x PubMed PMID: 10515400. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data

LinkOut - more resources