Search

This paper reports and discusses the weekly Clapping for Carers - described as 'front-line heroes' that took place across the United Kingdom during the first national lockdown of the coronavirus pandemic. Data are drawn from a UK-wide online survey of health and social care workers, completed in May to July 2020. The survey received 3,425 responses of which 2,541 were analysed; free-text comments were categorised. One question asked specifically: 'Do you think the "Clap for Carers" was a helpful response from the public?', and 815 comments were provided. Responses were extracted from these 815 free-text comments and categorised as follows: unequivocally Yes, predominantly Yes, mixed feelings, predominantly No and unequivocally No. Most comments revealed mixed feelings about the helpfulness of Clapping with only a minority being entirely supportive. The free-text comments offer some explanations for these views with many feeling that Clapping distracted from the severity of the pandemic and the inadequate resources. The free-text comments reveal workforce concerns that the support demonstrated for the frontline workforce in Clapping might be transitory and that it may not translate into workforce improvements and political commitment to further funding of health and social care. Some saw the value of Clapping as illustrative of community cohesion. There was little mention of Clapping for heroes, and where it was the notion of heroism was rejected. The demonstration of public support in Clapping for Carers may have directly benefitted the public, but only indirectly the workforce. Future recruitment data may help discern if public support has translated into a desire to join the workforce.

BackgroundPotentially avoidable risk factors continue to cause unnecessary disability and premature death in older people. Health risk assessment (HRA), a method successfully used in working-age populations, is a promising method for cost-effective health promotion and preventive care in older individuals, but the long-term effects of this approach are unknown. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of an innovative approach to HRA and counselling in older individuals for health behaviours, preventive care, and long-term survival.Methods and findingsThis study was a pragmatic, single-centre randomised controlled clinical trial in community-dwelling individuals aged 65 y or older registered with one of 19 primary care physician (PCP) practices in a mixed rural and urban area in Switzerland. From November 2000 to January 2002, 874 participants were randomly allocated to the intervention and 1,410 to usual care. The intervention consisted of HRA based on self-administered questionnaires and individualised computer-generated feedback reports, combined with nurse and PCP counselling over a 2-y period. Primary outcomes were health behaviours and preventive care use at 2 y and all-cause mortality at 8 y. At baseline, participants in the intervention group had a mean ± standard deviation of 6.9 ± 3.7 risk factors (including unfavourable health behaviours, health and functional impairments, and social risk factors) and 4.3 ± 1.8 deficits in recommended preventive care. At 2 y, favourable health behaviours and use of preventive care were more frequent in the intervention than in the control group (based on z-statistics from generalised estimating equation models). For example, 70% compared to 62% were physically active (odds ratio 1.43, 95% CI 1.16-1.77, p = 0.001), and 66% compared to 59% had influenza vaccinations in the past year (odds ratio 1.35, 95% CI 1.09-1.66, p = 0.005). At 8 y, based on an intention-to-treat analysis, the estimated proportion alive was 77.9% in the intervention and 72.8% in the control group, for an absolute mortality difference of 4.9% (95% CI 1.3%-8.5%, p = 0.009; based on z-test for risk difference). The hazard ratio of death comparing intervention with control was 0.79 (95% CI 0.66-0.94, p = 0.009; based on Wald test from Cox regression model), and the number needed to receive the intervention to prevent one death was 21 (95% CI 12-79). The main limitations of the study include the single-site study design, the use of a brief self-administered questionnaire for 2-y outcome data collection, the unavailability of other long-term outcome data (e.g., functional status, nursing home admissions), and the availability of long-term follow-up data on mortality for analysis only in 2014.ConclusionsThis is the first trial to our knowledge demonstrating that a collaborative care model of HRA in community-dwelling older people not only results in better health behaviours and increased use of recommended preventive care interventions, but also improves survival. The intervention tested in our study may serve as a model of how to implement a relatively low-cost but effective programme of disease prevention and health promotion in older individuals.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN 28458424.

BackgroundThis paper describes the study protocol, the recruitment, and base-line data for evaluating the success of randomisation of the PRO-AGE (PRevention in Older people-Assessment in GEneralists' practices) project.Methods/designA group of general practitioners (GPs) in London (U.K.), Hamburg (Germany) and Solothurn (Switzerland) were trained in risk identification, health promotion, and prevention in older people. Their non-disabled older patients were invited to participate in a randomised controlled study. Participants allocated to the intervention group were offered the Health Risk Appraisal for Older Persons (HRA-O) instrument with a site-specific method for reinforcement (London: physician reminders in electronic medical record; Hamburg: one group session or two preventive home visits; Solothurn: six-monthly preventive home visits over a two-year period). Participants allocated to the control group received usual care. At each site, an additional group of GPs did not receive the training, and their eligible patients were invited to participate in a concurrent comparison group. Primary outcomes are self-reported health behaviour and preventative care use at one-year follow-up. In Solothurn, an additional follow-up was conducted at two years. The number of older persons agreeing to participate (% of eligible persons) in the randomised controlled study was 2503 (66.0%) in London, 2580 (53.6%) in Hamburg, and 2284 (67.5%) in Solothurn. Base-line findings confirm that randomisation of participants was successful, with comparable characteristics between intervention and control groups. The number of persons (% of eligible) enrolled in the concurrent comparison group was 636 (48.8%) in London, 746 (35.7%) in Hamburg, and 1171 (63.0%) in Solothurn.DiscussionPRO-AGE is the first large-scale randomised controlled trial of health risk appraisal for older people in Europe. Its results will inform about the effects of implementing HRA-O with different methods of reinforcement.

BackgroundHealth risk appraisal is a promising method for health promotion and prevention in older persons. The Health Risk Appraisal for the Elderly (HRA-E) developed in the U.S. has unique features but has not been tested outside the United States.MethodsBased on the original HRA-E, we developed a scientifically updated and regionally adapted multilingual Health Risk Appraisal for Older Persons (HRA-O) instrument consisting of a self-administered questionnaire and software-generated feed-back reports. We evaluated the practicability and performance of the questionnaire in non-disabled community-dwelling older persons in London (U.K.) (N = 1090), Hamburg (Germany) (N = 804), and Solothurn (Switzerland) (N = 748) in a sub-sample of an international randomised controlled study.ResultsOver eighty percent of invited older persons returned the self-administered HRA-O questionnaire. Fair or poor self-perceived health status and older age were correlated with higher rates of non-return of the questionnaire. Older participants and those with lower educational levels reported more difficulty in completing the HRA-O questionnaire as compared to younger and higher educated persons. However, even among older participants and those with low educational level, more than 80% rated the questionnaire as easy to complete. Prevalence rates of risks for functional decline or problems were between 2% and 91% for the 19 HRA-O domains. Participants' intention to change health behaviour suggested that for some risk factors participants were in a pre-contemplation phase, having no short- or medium-term plans for change. Many participants perceived their health behaviour or preventative care uptake as optimal, despite indications of deficits according to the HRA-O based evaluation.ConclusionThe HRA-O questionnaire was highly accepted by a broad range of community-dwelling non-disabled persons. It identified a high number of risks and problems, and provided information on participants' intention to change health behaviour.