Effects, costs and feasibility of the 'Stay Active at Home' Reablement training programme for home care professionals: study protocol of a cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: According to the principles of Reablement, home care services are meant to be goal-oriented, holistic and person-centred taking into account the capabilities and opportunities of older adults. However, home care services traditionally focus on doing things for older adults rather than with them. To implement Reablement in practice, the 'Stay Active at Home' programme was developed. It is assumed that the programme leads to a reduction in sedentary behaviour in older adults and consequently more cost-effective outcomes in terms of their health and wellbeing. However, this has yet to be proven. METHODS/ DESIGN: A two-group cluster randomised controlled trial with 12 months follow-up will be conducted. Ten nursing teams will be selected, pre-stratified on working area and randomised into an intervention group ('Stay Active at Home') or control group (no training). All nurses of the participating teams are eligible to participate in the study. Older adults and, if applicable, their domestic support workers (DSWs) will be allocated to the intervention or control group as well, based on the allocation of the nursing team. Older adults are eligible to participate, if they: 1) receive homecare services by the selected teams; and 2) are 65 years or older. Older adults will be excluded if they: 1) are terminally ill or bedbound; 2) have serious cognitive or psychological problems; or 3) are unable to communicate in Dutch. DSWs are eligible to participate if they provide services to clients who fulfil the eligibility criteria for older adults. The study consists of an effect evaluation (primary outcome: sedentary behaviour in older adults), an economic evaluation and a process evaluation. Data for the effect and economic evaluation will be collected at baseline and 6 and/or 12 months after baseline using performance-based and self-reported measures. In addition, data from client records will be extracted. A mixed-methods design will be applied for the process evaluation, collecting data of older adults and professionals throughout the study period. DISCUSSION: This study will result in evidence about the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and feasibility of the 'Stay Active at Home' programme. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03293303 , registered on 20 September 2017.

Positive and negative outcomes of informal caregiving at home and in institutionalised long-term care: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Our ageing society is putting tremendous strain on public health and welfare programs to meet the needs of ageing individuals. Promoting informal caregiving is one way for policymakers to reduce this burden. However, caregiving may be experienced as stressful and is associated with adverse health consequences. While quite a lot of research focuses on caregiving for community-dwelling older adults, little is known about informal care in institutionalised long-term care (ILTC). Therefore, the objectives of this study were: 1) to compare characteristics of informal caregivers and care receivers and caregiver outcomes - at home and in ILTC; 2) to study the association between these characteristics and positive and negative caregiver outcomes; 3) to investigate the moderating effect of the setting (at home vs. ILTC) on these associations. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using the TOPICS-MDS DataSet. A total of 5197 Dutch dyads were included. The average age of the care receivers and caregivers was respectively 80.7 years and 63.2 years. Several sociodemographic, health-related and caregiving-related characteristics of care receiver and caregiver and two caregiver outcomes (i.e., subjective burden and care-related quality of life) were included in the analyses. RESULTS: Caregivers in both settings experienced comparable levels of subjective burden. Caregivers at home had slightly lower care-related quality of life than caregivers in ILTC. Several care receiver characteristics (i.e., male sex, married/cohabiting, more morbidities/disability, and less self-perceived health/psychological wellbeing) and several caregiver characteristics (i.e., female sex, being younger, living together with the care receiver, more objective burden, less self-perceived health, and more support) were associated with an increase in burden and/or a decrease in care-related quality of life. Some of these associations were stronger for dyads at home compared to dyads in ILTC. CONCLUSIONS: Informal caregiving does not stop with admission to an ILTC facility. Both settings need an informal caregiving policy, which is (1) tailored to the individual characteristics of care receivers and caregivers; (2) pays attention to the identified risk groups; and (3) reduces the negative caregiver outcomes and emphasizes the positive outcomes at the same time.

Sampling and ethical issues in a multicenter study on health of people with intellectual disabilities.

OBJECTIVES: To study health inequalities in persons with intellectual disabilities, representative and unbiased samples are needed. Little is known about sample recruitment in this vulnerable group. This study aimed to determine differences in ethical procedures and sample recruitment in a multicenter research on health of persons with intellectual disabilities. Study questions regarded the practical sampling procedure, how ethical consent was obtained in each country, and which person gave informed consent for each study participant. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Exploratory, as part of a multicenter study, in 14 European countries. After developing identical guidelines for all countries, partners collected data on health indicators by orally interviewing 1,269 persons with intellectual disabilities. Subsequently, semistructured interviews were carried out with partners and researchers. RESULTS: Identification of sufficient study participants proved feasible. Sampling frames differed from nationally estimated proportions of persons with intellectual disabilities living with families or in residential settings. Sometimes, people with intellectual disabilities were hard to trace. Consent procedures and legal representation varied broadly. Nonresponse data proved unavailable. CONCLUSION: To build representative unbiased samples of vulnerable groups with limited academic capacities, international consensus on respectful consent procedures and tailored patient information is necessary.