Effect of Health Risk Assessment and Counselling on Health Behaviour and Survival in Older People: A Pragmatic Randomised Trial

TL;DR

A health risk assessment and counseling program improved health behaviors and survival in older people over eight years.

Contribution

This is the first trial showing that health risk assessment with counseling improves long-term survival in older adults.

Findings

Intervention group had higher rates of physical activity and influenza vaccination compared to control group.

At 8 years, the intervention group had a 4.9% lower mortality rate than the control group.

The hazard ratio of death in the intervention group was 0.79 compared to the control group.

Abstract

Potentially 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.

This 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.

This 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.

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN 28458424

In a randomized trial, Andreas Stuck and colleagues assess the benefits of a collaborative care intervention to health behaviors and survival among elderly participants in Solothurn, Switzerland.

The world’s population is getting older. In almost every country, the over–60 age group is growing faster than any other age group. In 2000, globally, there were about 605 million people aged 60 or more; by 2050, 2 billion people (many living in low- and middle-income countries) will be in this age group. But old age is not always a happy and healthy phase of life. Sadly, many older people find that their enjoyment of life is curtailed by chronic illnesses and increasing disability. Moreover, many older people die prematurely. In part, these adverse outcomes are linked to avoidable risk factors, particularly unhealthy lifestyles and failure to engage in preventative care. For example, older people commonly are physically inactive, smoke, drink too much alcohol, or do not have regular blood pressure checks or annual influenza vaccinations.

Programs that encourage a healthy lifestyle and the uptake of preventative care among older people are a health policy priority worldwide. But what is the best way to improve health and reduce premature death among older people? One promising approach is “health risk assessment.” In this multidimensional approach, which has been used successfully among working-age populations, older individuals complete a questionnaire to provide information about their risk factors for functional status decline and are subsequently given personalized feedback on how to promote health, maintain function, or prevent disease. Previous studies showed that this approach may improve short-term outcomes such as take-up of preventive care and health behaviors, but the long-term effects on health were unknown. Here, the researchers evaluate the effects of health risk assessment plus counseling on both short-term outcomes and on long-term survival among older people by undertaking a pragmatic randomized controlled trial in Solothurn, Switzerland. A randomized controlled trial compares the outcomes of individuals randomly chosen to receive or not receive an intervention; a pragmatic trial asks whether an intervention works under real-life conditions.

The researchers allocated 874 community-dwelling individuals aged 65 years or older living in a mixed rural and urban area in Switzerland to receive the intervention (the intervention group) and 1,410 individuals to receive usual care (the control group). The intervention consisted of health risk assessment based on self-administered questionnaires and individualized computer-generated feedback reports, combined with nurse and primary care physician counseling over a two-year period. At baseline, intervention group participants had about seven risk factors on average (including unfavorable health behaviors, health and functional impairments, and social risk factors) and 4–5 deficits in recommended preventative care. At two years, favorable health behaviors and use of preventative care were more frequent in the intervention group than in the control group, and these differences were statistically significant. For example, 70% of the intervention group were physically active compared to 62% of the control group, and 66% of the intervention group had had an influenza vaccination during the past 12 months compared to 59% of the control group. At eight years, 77.9% and 72.8% of the participants in the intervention and control groups, respectively, were still alive. Comparing the intervention group with the control group, the hazard ratio of death was 0.79. Finally, the researchers calculated that, to avert one death over eight years, 21 individuals would need to receive the intervention.

These findings show that implementation of a collaborative care model of health risk assessment in community-dwelling older people resulted in better health behaviors, increased use of preventative care, and improved survival. Certain aspects of the trial design may limit the interpretation of these findings. For example, a self-administered questionnaire was used to collect the two-year health behavior outcome data, and some participants may have given socially desirable answers (for example, they may have understated their alcohol intake). Also, as the study was undertaken at a single site, these findings may not be generalizable. Moreover, the study was based on complete follow-up information on survival, but no long-term follow-up data were available for functional status outcome. Overall, however, these findings suggest that the use of health risk assessment combined with personal reinforcement of health risk assessment recommendations by specially trained counselors might be an effective and relatively low-cost way to promote good health among non-disabled older people. Moreover, the researchers suggest that it might be possible to adapt this model for use in low- and middle-income countries, where the challenge of a rapidly growing population of older people is greatest.

This list of resources contains links that can be accessed when viewing the PDF on a device or via the online version of the article at http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001889.

The US National Institute on Aging provides information on health and aging (in English and Spanish)

The UK National Health Service and Age UK (a not-for-profit organization) have produced a practical guide to healthy aging

The World Health Organization provides information on many aspects of aging (in several languages); the WHO Study on Global Ageing and Adult Health is compiling longitudinal information on the health and well-being of adult populations and the aging process

The United Nations Population Fund and HelpAge International publication Ageing in the Twenty-First Century is available

HelpAge International is an international non-governmental organization that helps older people claim their rights, challenge discrimination, and overcome poverty, so that they can lead dignified, secure, and healthy lives

More information on this trial, the Prevention in Older People–Assessment in Generalists’ Practices (PRO-AGE) trial, is available

Wikipedia has a page on health risk assessment (note that Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit; available in several languages)

Figures