Search

Background: Rural family caregivers (FCGs) in the United States often experience high economic costs. This randomized controlled trial compared a transitional palliative care intervention (TPC) to support FCGs of seriously ill care recipients (CRs) to an attention control condition. We evaluated the TPC's effect on healthcare use and out‐of‐pocket spending for both FCGs and CRs. Methods: TPC FCGs received teaching, guidance, and counseling via video calls for 8 weeks following CR discharge from the hospital. After discharge, a research assistant called all FCGs once a month for up to 6 months or CR death to collect self‐reported healthcare utilization (e.g., outpatient, emergency department, and hospital), out‐of‐pocket healthcare spending (e.g., deductibles and coinsurance), and health‐related travel costs (e.g., transportation, lodging, food) for FCGs and CRs. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated using negative binomial regressions. Results: The study included 282 FCG–CR dyads across three U.S. states. Follow‐up over the 6‐month period was shortened by high CR mortality rates across both arms (29%), but was similar across arms. TPC reduced nights in the hospital for CR (IRR = 0.75; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.56–0. 99). Total out‐of‐pocket spending was not significantly different for TPC versus control. Across both groups, mean out‐of‐pocket spending for dyads was $1401.85, with healthcare payments contributing $1048.58 and transportation expenses contributing $136.79. TPC dyads reported lower lodging costs (IRR = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.56–0.89). Conclusions: This study contributes to evidence that palliative care interventions reduce the number of nights in the hospital for seriously ill patients. Yet, overall rural FCGs and seriously ill CRs experience substantial out‐of‐pocket economic costs in the 6 months following hospitalization. Transitional care intervention design should consider impacts on patient and caregiver spending. Clinicaltrials.gov # is NCT03339271. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Observational studies have consistently found a link between low serum 25‐hydroxyvitamin D concentration and higher risk of cognitive impairment. Results from randomized controlled trials have been mixed, and few have been conducted in the general population. Methods: We recruited 21,315 community‐dwelling Australians aged between 60 and 84 years to participate in the D‐Health Trial, a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled trial. The intervention was monthly oral doses of 60,000 international units of vitamin D or placebo for 5 years. We assessed cognitive function in a randomly sampled group of participants aged ≥70 years using the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status (TICS) at 2 and 5 years after randomization. The primary outcome for this analysis was TICS score; the secondary outcome was the proportion of people who had cognitive impairment (defined as TICS score ≤25). We analyzed data using mixed models (linear and logistic). Results: We interviewed 3887 participants at year 2 and 3614 participants at year 5. The mean TICS score at these time points was 32.3 and 32.2, respectively. Vitamin D supplementation did not affect cognitive function as measured by TICS score (mean difference between vitamin D and placebo groups 0.04; 95% CI −0.14 to 0.23), or alter risk of cognitive impairment (odds ratio 1.00; 95% CI 0.75 to 1.33). Conclusions: Monthly bolus doses of vitamin D supplementation neither enhanced nor hindered cognitive function among older adults. Population‐wide vitamin D supplementation of older adults that are largely vitamin D replete is unlikely to substantially benefit cognition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]