Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Table 1.

Distribution of baseline variables of participants with an ISAR-PC score ≥ 2, by study arm (N = 2283).

More »

Table 1 Expand

Fig 1.

Flow of practices and participants through the trial.

Numbers do not add up because persons who did not return a questionnaire at 6 months (n = 119) could return a questionnaire at 12, 18 and/or 24 months. Eleven practices were randomized to the intervention group and 13 practices were randomized to the control group. In both groups around 35% of the invited persons were at increased risk of functional decline and participated in the study. In both groups the follow-up rates were around 77% and 76% after one and two years respectively.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Fig 2.

Effect of the intervention on disability (modified Katz-ADL index score).

The effect of the intervention was equal (-0.07) and very small across all follow-up times; The scale on the y-axis only ranges from 0 to 7.0 points on the modified Katz-ADL index score, which is a 15-point scale.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 2.

Primary results of trial: Mean scores and difference between intervention and control arm at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 3.

Effect of the intervention on secondary outcomes.

The effect of the intervention was small and statistically not significant for all secondary outcomes across all follow-up moments except for after-hours primary care were a small effect was found at six months. Note that the scales on the y-axis do not cover the full range of the measurement instrument.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Fig 4.

Kaplan Meier all-cause mortality for persons at increased risk of functional decline.

No difference was found in overall mortality between both study arms; Log rank test = 0.84; p = 0.36.

More »

Fig 4 Expand