General health, healthcare costs and dental care use of elderly with a natural dentition, implant-retained overdenture or conventional denture: an 8-year cohort of Dutch elderly (aged 75 and over).

BACKGROUND: Cross-sectional studies have shown that elderly with a natural dentition have better general health than edentulous elderly, but this has not been confirmed in studies with longitudinal design. METHODS: This prospective longitudinal study with a follow-up of 8 years aimed to assess differences in general health, healthcare costs and dental care use between elderly with a natural dentition and edentulous elderly wearing implant-retained or conventional dentures. Based on data of all national insurance claims for dental and medical care from Dutch elderly (aged ≥75 years) general health outcomes (chronic conditions, medication use), healthcare costs and dental care use could be assessed of three groups of elderly, viz. elderly with a natural dentition, elderly with conventional dentures and elderly with implant-retained overdentures. RESULTS: At baseline (2009), a total of 168,122 elderly could be included (143,199 natural dentition, 18,420 conventional dentures, 6503 implant-retained overdentures). Here we showed that after 8 years follow-up elderly with a natural dentition had more favorable general health outcomes (fewer chronic conditions, less medication use), lower healthcare costs and lower dental costs - but higher dental care use - than edentulous elderly. At baseline the general health of elderly with an implant-retained overdentures resembled the profile of elderly with a natural dentition, but over time their general health problems became comparable to elderly with conventional dentures. CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that elderly with a natural dentition had significant better health and lower healthcare costs compared to edentulous elderly (with or without dental implants).

Impact of a Nurse-Led Health Promotion Intervention in an Aging Population: Results From a Quasi-Experimental Study on the "Community Health Consultation Offices for Seniors".

Objective: The study evaluated the nurse-led intervention "Community Health Consultation Offices for Seniors (CHCO)" on health-related and care needs-related outcomes in community-dwelling older people (⩾60 years). Method: With a quasi-experimental design, the CHCO intervention was evaluated on health-related and care needs-related outcomes after 1-year follow-up. Older people who received the intervention were frail, overweight, or were smoking. The comparison group received care as usual. In both groups, similar data were collected on health status, falls and fractures, and care needs. In the intervention group, additional data were collected on biometric measures and health-related behavior. Results: The intervention group and the care-as-usual group included 403 seniors and 984 seniors, respectively. Health-related outcomes, behaviors, and biometric measures, remained stable. After 1 year, care needs increased for both groups, but at a lower rate for the care-as-usual group. Discussion: The CHCO intervention showed no significant improvement on health-related outcomes or stability in care needs-related outcomes.

Assessment of Biopsychosocial Complexity and Health Care Needs: Measurement Properties of the INTERMED Self-Assessment Version.

OBJECTIVE: The INTERMED Self-Assessment questionnaire (IMSA) was developed as an alternative to the observer-rated INTERMED (IM) to assess biopsychosocial complexity and health care needs. We studied feasibility, reliability, and validity of the IMSA within a large and heterogeneous international sample of adult hospital inpatients and outpatients as well as its predictive value for health care use (HCU) and quality of life (QoL). METHODS: A total of 850 participants aged 17 to 90 years from five countries completed the IMSA and were evaluated with the IM. The following measurement properties were determined: feasibility by percentages of missing values; reliability by Cronbach α; interrater agreement by intraclass correlation coefficients; convergent validity of IMSA scores with mental health (Short Form 36 emotional well-being subscale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), medical health (Cumulative Illness Rating Scale) and QoL (Euroqol-5D) by Spearman rank correlations; and predictive validity of IMSA scores with HCU and QoL by (generalized) linear mixed models. RESULTS: Feasibility, face validity, and reliability (Cronbach α = 0.80) were satisfactory. Intraclass correlation coefficient between IMSA and IM total scores was .78 (95% CI = .75-.81). Correlations of the IMSA with the Short Form 36, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Cumulative Illness Rating Scale, and Euroqol-5D (convergent validity) were -.65, .15, .28, and -.59, respectively. The IMSA significantly predicted QoL and also HCU (emergency department visits, hospitalization, outpatient visits, and diagnostic examinations) after 3- and 6-month follow-up. Results were comparable between hospital sites, inpatients and outpatients, as well as age groups. CONCLUSIONS: The IMSA is a generic and time-efficient method to assess biopsychosocial complexity and to provide guidance for multidisciplinary care trajectories in adult patients, with good reliability and validity across different cultures.

Oral health status and need for oral care of care-dependent indwelling elderly: from admission to death.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to assess oral health and oral status of elderly patients newly admitted to a nursing home from admission until death. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oral health, oral status, need for dental care, cooperation with dental treatment, and given dental care were assessed by two geriatric dentists in all new long-stay patients (n = 725) admitted to a nursing home between January 2009 and December 2013. All patients were followed from admission until death or until they left the nursing home. RESULTS: At admission, dementia patients were significantly older than somatic patients; median [IQR] ages were, respectively, 85 [79-89] and 81 [76-87] (p = 0.001). In addition, edentulous patients were significantly older than patients with remaining teeth, 83 [79-89] versus 80 [74-86] (p = 0.001) years. Thirty percent of the admitted patients died within 12 months after admission. A small minority (20%) of the patients had their own teeth. In this group, poor oral hygiene (72%), caries (70%), and broken teeth (62%) were frequently observed. Edentulous patients were significantly more cooperative with treatment than patients with remaining teeth (64 versus 27%). Finally, significantly less professional dental care was given to edentulous patients when compared to patients with remaining teeth (median 90 [IQR 60-180] versus 165 [75-375] min). CONCLUSION: When compared to edentulous elderly patients, patients with remaining teeth were younger at admittance, were more often non-cooperative, and had a poorer oral health and higher need for dental care. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: It is important that health care workers ensure adequate oral health and dental care to frail elderly, especially for elderly with remaining teeth.

Predictive validity of a frailty measure (GFI) and a case complexity measure (IM-E-SA) on healthcare costs in an elderly population.

OBJECTIVES: Measures of frailty (Groningen Frailty Indicator, GFI) and case complexity (INTERMED for the Elderly, IM-E-SA) may assist healthcare professionals to allocate healthcare resources. Both instruments have been evaluated with good psychometric properties. Limited evidence has been published about their predictive validity. Thus, our aim is to evaluate the predictive validity of both instruments on healthcare costs. METHODS: Multivariate linear regression models were developed to estimate associations between the predictors frailty (GFI) and/or case complexity (IM-E-SA) and the healthcare costs (in € log transformed) in the following year. All models were adjusted for demographics and the presence of morbidity. RESULTS: In the multivariate regression analyses the continuous scores of the GFI and IM-E-SA remained significant predictors for total healthcare costs. Adjusted ßs for GFI and IM-E-SA were respectively 0.14 (95% CI 0.10-0.18) and 0.06 (95% CI 0.04-0.07). The corresponding explained variance (R(2)) for both models was 0.40. Frailty remained a significant predictor of long-term care costs (adjusted ß 0.13 [95% CI 0.09-0.16]), while case complexity was a significant predictor of curative care costs (adjusted ß 0.03 [95% CI 0.02-0.05]). CONCLUSIONS: The GFI and IM-E-SA both accurately predict total healthcare costs in the following year.

Development and measurement properties of the self assessment version of the INTERMED for the elderly to assess case complexity.

OBJECTIVES: The INTERMED for the Elderly Self Assessment (IM-E-SA) was developed to support health care professionals in providing demand driven elderly care. It assesses case complexity and health care needs as perceived by older adults themselves. By applying this instrument tailored care can be provided as it supports professionals in their allocation decisions. The aim was to evaluate the measurement properties of the IM-E-SA. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study 338 elderly people completed a postal questionnaire and participated in an interview. Feasibility of the IM-E-SA was assessed by determining the percentages of missing values per item. Reliability of the IM-E-SA was expressed as Cronbach's alpha. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) were calculated between the IM-E-SA and IM-E. Nonparametric tests were applied to assess if the IM-E-SA could distinguish between subgroups of elderly adults who differed on demographic characteristics and the prevalence of diseases/disorders. Convergent validity and discriminant validity were assessed using Spearman rank correlations between the IM-E-SA and IM-E, life satisfaction (Cantril's Ladder of Life), activities of daily living (Katz extended), quality of life (EQ-5D), mental health (SF-36) and prevalence of diseases/disorders. RESULTS: Percentages of missing values per IM-E-SA item ranged from 0 to 5%. Cronbach's alpha was .78. The ICC between the total scores of the IM-E-SA and the IM-E was .68. The IM-E-SA yielded statistically significant differences between subgroups (known-group validity). Correlations evaluating the convergent validity were moderate to strong (.50-.70). Those correlations assessing the discriminant validity were moderate (.38-.53). CONCLUSION: This study supports the feasibility, reliability and validity of the IM-E-SA.

Measurement properties of the Groningen Frailty Indicator in home-dwelling and institutionalized elderly people.

OBJECTIVES: To enable prevention of poor outcome in elderly people, a valid instrument is required to detect individuals at high risk. The concept of frailty is a better predictor than age alone. The Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) has been developed to identify frailty. We assessed feasibility, reliability, and construct validity of the self-assessment version of the GFI. DESIGN: Cross-sectional. SETTING: Community-based. PARTICIPANTS: Home-dwelling and institutionalized elderly persons were included in the study (n = 353) who met the following inclusion criteria: persons 65 years and older who were able to fill out questionnaires. MEASUREMENTS: The feasibility of the GFI was assessed by determining the proportion of missing values per item. The internal consistency reliability of the GFI was established by calculating the KR-20. Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests were applied to assess discrimination between specific subgroups (known group validity). Convergent and discriminant validity was assessed using Spearman Rank correlations between GFI and diseases and disorders, case complexity, and health care needs (INTERMED), life satisfaction (Cantril Ladder of Life), activities of daily living (Katz), quality of life (EQ-5D), and mental health (SF-36). Finally, we used multivariate regression analyses to evaluate the cutoff score of the GFI (<4 versus ≥4). RESULTS: A total of 296 (84%) of the participants completed all items of the GFI; the internal consistency was 0.68. The GFI yielded statistically significant GFI scores for subgroups (known group validity). The correlations for the convergent (range 0.45 to 0.61) and discriminant validity (range 0.08 to 0.50) were also as hypothesized. In contrast with nonfrail participants, frail older persons had higher levels of case complexity, disability, and lower quality of life and life satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the self-assessment version of the GFI in home-dwelling and institutionalized elderly people.