Home-based Extended Rehabilitation for Older People with Frailty (HERO): a Randomised Controlled Trial
Clegg, A.; Prescott, M.; Collinson, M.; Goodwin, V. A.; Thompson, E.; Bestwick, R.; Bojke, C.; Clarke, D. J.; Day, F.; Forster, A.; Hall, A.; Hulme, C.; Peacock, J.; Ziegler, F.; Farrin, A. J.
Show abstract
ObjectiveTo evaluate whether home-based extended rehabilitation for older people with frailty after hospitalisation with an acute illness or injury can improve physical health-related quality of life and is cost-effective. Trial designPragmatic, multi-centre, individually randomised controlled parallel group superiority trial with economic evaluation and embedded process evaluation. SettingRecruitment from 15 NHS Trusts in England, with home-based intervention delivery. ParticipantsEligible participants were 65 years or older with mild/moderate/severe frailty (score of 5-7 on Clinical Frailty Scale) admitted to hospital with acute illness/injury, then discharged home directly, or from intermediate care (post-acute care) rehabilitation services. Recruitment took place December 2017 to August 2021, with follow-up to August 2022. InterventionsParticipants were randomly assigned (1.28:1) to the Home-based Older Peoples Exercise (HOPE) programme - a 24-week home-based manualised, progressive exercise intervention as extended rehabilitation, or usual care (control). Participants were not masked to allocation. Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome was physical health-related quality of life, measured using the physical component summary (PCS) of the modified Short Form 36-item health questionnaire (SF36) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes at six and 12 months included physical and mental health-related quality of life, functional independence, death, hospitalisations and care home admissions. Researchers involved in data collection were masked to allocation. ResultsWe randomised 740 participants (410 HOPE, 330 control) across 15 sites. 479 (64.7%) participants completed 12-month follow-up. 188 HOPE participants (45.9%) completed 24 weeks of intervention delivery. Over half of participants completed more than 75% of prescribed exercises. Intention-to-treat analyses showed no evidence that HOPE was superior to control for 12-month PCS score (adjusted mean difference -0.22, 95% CI -1.47 to 1.03; p = 0.73). There was some evidence of a higher rate of all-cause hospitalisations in the control arm (incidence rate ratio 1.12, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.25; p = 0.05), but no differences in other outcomes. The process evaluation found the intervention was largely delivered as intended and proved acceptable to most participants. The economic analysis showed HOPE plus usual care costs of GB{pound}1,401 with 0.024 QALY improvement compared to the control. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio GB{pound}58,375. LimitationsThe HERO trial was delivered during especially challenging circumstances that included the COVID-19 pandemic. We examined outcomes taking account of this but detected no difference in primary or secondary outcomes, providing reassurance that COVID-19 was unlikely to have influenced trial results. ConclusionsBased on our findings, we do not recommend routine commissioning of extended rehabilitation for older people with frailty after discharge home from hospital or intermediate care, following an acute admission with a medical illness or injury. Trial registrationISRCTN-13927531 (19/04/2017).
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- COVID-19 risk factors amongst 14,786 care home residents: An observational longitudinal analysis including daily community positive test rates of COVID-19, hospital stays, and vaccination status in Wales (UK) between 1st September 2020 and 1st May 2021. 93%
- Evaluation of Real-World Mobility Recovery after Hip Fracture using Digital Mobility Outcomes 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigating the use of a one-page infographic to improve recruitment and retention to the BASIL+ Randomised Controlled Trial: A Study Within a Trial (SWAT) 95%
- STIMULATE-ICP: A pragmatic, multi-centre, cluster randomised trial of an integrated care pathway with a nested, Phase III, open label, adaptive platform randomised drug trial in individuals with Long COVID: a structured protocol 95%
- Supervised and self-directed technology-based dual-task exercise training programme for older adults at risk of falling – Protocol for a feasibility study 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Results reporting for clinical trials led by medical universities and university hospitals in the Nordic countries was often missing or delayed 91%
- Results dissemination from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centres was delayed and incomplete 90%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Retrospective Analysis of Serious Adverse Events and Deaths in US-Based Lifestyle Clinical Trials for Cognitive Health 94%
- The Helping Older People Engage (HOPE) Study: Protocol & COVID Modifications for a Randomized Trial 93%
- The IGNITE Trial: Participant Recruitment Lessons Prior to SARS-CoV-2 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Real-time Auditory Feedback for Improving Gait and Walking in People with Parkinson’s Disease: A Pilot and Feasibility Trial 92%
- The MultimorbiditY COllaborative Medication Review And DEcision Making (MyComrade) study: A protocol for a cross-border pilot cluster randomised controlled trial 90%
- A Health Navigator intervention to address the unmet social needs of caregivers of hospitalised children in South Australia: protocol for a mixed-methods pilot study 89%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.