The final sample of n=401 patients is on average 82.4 years old (SD=6.1) and 63.3% female. About 61.9% of the patients reported to live alone, 5.8% had no caregiver available at the time of the baseline assessment. The family status of 36.3% of the patients was married, 53.5% of them were widowed. A few were single (4.3%) or divorced (5.9%). The majority of the subjects indicated that they have children (90.0%). There were no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control group in respect to sociodemographic variables. For detailed information, see table 1.
Table 1 Sociodemographic variables
|
Total sample
(n=401)
|
Control group
(n=192)
|
Intervention group
(n=209)
|
p-value
|
Age, mean (years) (SD)
|
82.4
|
(6.1)
|
82.4
|
(6.1)
|
82.5
|
(6.0)
|
.764
|
Sex (female), n (%)
|
254
|
63.3%
|
121
|
63.0%
|
133
|
63.6%
|
.490
|
Family status
|
n=391
|
n=185
|
n=206
|
|
single
|
17
|
4.3%
|
8
|
4.3%
|
9
|
4.4%
|
.460
|
married
|
142
|
36.3%
|
70
|
37.8%
|
72
|
35.0%
|
|
divorced
|
23
|
5.9%
|
14
|
7.6%
|
9
|
4.4%
|
|
widowed
|
209
|
53.5%
|
93
|
50.3%
|
116
|
56.3%
|
|
Living alone
|
n=394
|
n=188
|
n=206
|
|
(yes), n (%)
|
244
|
61.9%
|
113
|
60.1%
|
131
|
63.6%
|
.272
|
Having children
|
n=391
|
n=185
|
n=206
|
|
(yes), n (%)
|
350
|
90.0%
|
170
|
92.9%
|
180
|
87.4%
|
.050
|
* Statistically significant difference between control and intervention group on a level of significance of α<0.05; different n’s due to missing data.
The distribution of the patients over the hospitals and medical specialty is shown in table 2 and 3.
Table 2 Distribution over the medical specialties
Medical specialties, n (%)
|
Total sample
(n=401)
|
Control group
(n=192)
|
Intervention group
(n=209)
|
Internal medicine
|
59
|
14.7 %
|
29
|
15.1 %
|
30
|
14.4 %
|
Neurology
|
30
|
7.5 %
|
12
|
6.3 %
|
18
|
8.6 %
|
Geriatrics
|
106
|
26.4 %
|
50
|
26.0 %
|
56
|
26.8 %
|
Trauma surgery
|
40
|
10.0 %
|
17
|
8.9 %
|
23
|
11.0 %
|
Nephrology
|
81
|
20.2 %
|
46
|
24.0 %
|
35
|
16.7 %
|
Gastroenterology
|
85
|
21.2 %
|
38
|
19.8 %
|
47
|
22.5 %
|
Table 3 Distribution over the hospitals
Hospital, n (%)
|
Total sample
(n=401)
|
Control group
(n=192)
|
Intervention group
(n=209)
|
1
|
200
|
49.9 %
|
100
|
52.1 %
|
100
|
47.8 %
|
2
|
62
|
15.5 %
|
24
|
12.5 %
|
38
|
18.2 %
|
3
|
139
|
34.7 %
|
68
|
35.4 %
|
71
|
34.0 %
|
Patients in our final sample reached an average MMSE score of 22.3, indicating a generally milder cognitive impairment in our study population. A total of 80.5% of the population were categorized with “mild cognitive impairment” according to the MMSE, 19.5% of the patients had “moderate cognitive impairment”. The functional status (Barthel Index) ranged from 5 to 70, with 70 indicating no functional impairment. Our study population shows a mean score of 50.4, which indicates a mild to moderate functional impairment. The hierarchical assessment of balance and mobility (HABAM) yields an average score of 19.1. The score indicates the highest value on one of the three dimensions balance, transfer and mobility. To look at each dimension separately, we computed mean scores for balance, transfer and mobility. The mean score for balance was 12.7, for transfer 14.5 and for mobility 16.0. These means show a moderate impairment for all three dimensions.
About 46.9% of the study population had a geriatric diagnosis, 12 patients (3.0%) had a diagnosis of dementia. A possible delirium was determined in 8.0% of the sample. The Edmonton Frail Scale shows a mean frailty score of 7.4 indicating a vulnerable sample. In n=77 (19.2%) patients of the sample, one of the main symptoms of depression according to DSM-V was found. The mean number of regularly taken drugs as part of the pharmacological treatment is 8.2 in the sample. For none of the described variables a statistically significant difference between intervention and control group was found (see table 4).
Table 4 Clinical variables in comparison between study groups
|
Total sample
(n=401)
|
Control group
(n=192)
|
Intervention group
(n=209)
|
p-value
|
Cognitive status (MMSE)
|
n=401
|
n=192
|
n=209
|
|
Score, (10 - 26), mean (SD)
|
22.2
|
(3.6)
|
22.0
|
(3.6)
|
22.3
|
(3.7)
|
.374
|
Mild cognitive impairment (score 20 - 26), n (%)
|
323
|
80.5%
|
154
|
80.2%
|
169
|
80.9%
|
.484
|
Moderate cognitive impairment (score 10 - 19), n (%)
|
78
|
19.5%
|
38
|
19.8%
|
40
|
19.1%
|
|
Functional Status (Barthel)
|
n=400
|
n=191
|
n=209
|
|
Score, (5 - 70), mean (SD)
|
50.4
|
(15.4)
|
49.9
|
(15.6)
|
50.8
|
(15.2)
|
.541
|
HABAM
|
n=401
|
n=192
|
n=209
|
|
Score (0 - 26), mean (SD)
|
19.1
|
(5.9)
|
19.0
|
(5.7)
|
19.3
|
(6.1)
|
.556
|
Balancea (0 - 21), mean (SD)
|
12.7
|
(7.0)
|
12.7
|
(6.9)
|
12.7
|
(7.1)
|
.994
|
Transferb (0 - 18), mean (SD)
|
14.5
|
(5.0)
|
14.5
|
(4.9)
|
14.5
|
(5.1)
|
.959
|
Mobilityc (0 - 26),mean (SD)
|
16.0
|
(7.8)
|
16.0
|
(7.5)
|
16.0
|
(8.1)
|
.978
|
Edmonton Frailty Index
|
n=397
|
n=188
|
n=209
|
|
Score, (2 - 15), mean (SD)
|
7.4
|
(2.5)
|
7.4
|
(2.5)
|
7.3
|
(2.6)
|
.675
|
Level of impairment
|
n=396
|
n=188
|
n=208
|
|
Yes, n (%)
|
197
|
50.3%
|
106
|
56.4%
|
91
|
43.8%
|
.008*
|
Care level
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
None, n (%)
|
199
|
51.0%
|
82
|
44.8%
|
117
|
56.5%
|
.084
|
1, n (%)
|
29
|
7.4%
|
15
|
8.2%
|
14
|
6.8%
|
|
2, n (%)
|
88
|
22.6%
|
41
|
22.4%
|
47
|
22.7%
|
|
3, n (%)
|
63
|
16.2%
|
38
|
20.8%
|
25
|
12.1%
|
|
4, n (%)
|
10
|
2.6%
|
6
|
3.3%
|
4
|
1.9%
|
|
5, n (%)
|
1
|
0.3%
|
1
|
0.5%
|
0
|
0.0%
|
|
Diagnosis of dementia (ICD-10)
|
n=401
|
n=192
|
n=209
|
|
Yes, n (%)
|
12
|
3.0%
|
8
|
4.2%
|
4
|
1.9%
|
.152
|
Geriatric Diagnosis (ICD-10)
|
n=401
|
n=192
|
n=209
|
|
Yes, n (%)
|
188
|
46.9%
|
89
|
46.4%
|
99
|
47.4%
|
.459
|
Delirium possible
|
n=387
|
n=185
|
n=202
|
|
Yes, n (%)
|
31
|
8.0%
|
16
|
8.6%
|
15
|
7.4%
|
.399
|
Depression
|
n=401
|
n=192
|
n=209
|
|
At least one main symptom of depression according to DSM-V, n (%)
|
77
|
19.2%
|
38
|
19.8%
|
39
|
18.7%
|
.436
|
Pharmacological treatment
|
n=398
|
n=191
|
n=207
|
|
Total number of regularly taken drugs, mean (SD)
|
8.2
|
(3.8)
|
8.6
|
(4.0)
|
7.9
|
(3.7)
|
.078
|
Utilization of health care services (preceding year)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hospital stayd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One or two hospital staysd, n (%)
|
293
|
74.9%
|
144
|
77.0%
|
149
|
73.0%
|
.216
|
More than two hospital staysd, n (%)
|
98
|
25.1%
|
43
|
23.0%
|
55
|
27.0%
|
|
Rehabilitatione, n (%)
|
46
|
11.8%
|
23
|
12.6%
|
23
|
11.1%
|
.372
|
Ambulatory caref, n (%)
|
152
|
38.8%
|
85
|
45.9%
|
67
|
32.4%
|
.004*
|
Total formal care (all day & night care)g, n (%)
|
13
|
3.3%
|
10
|
5.5%
|
3
|
1.5%
|
.027*
|
Short term careh, n (%)
|
28
|
7.3%
|
20
|
10.9%
|
8
|
4.0%
|
.007*
|
Care counsellingi, n (%)
|
75
|
21.2%
|
45
|
27.4%
|
30
|
15.8%
|
.005*
|
Additional care servicesj, n (%)
|
79
|
21.6%
|
46
|
26.0%
|
33
|
17.5%
|
.032*
|
CANE
|
n=396
|
n=188
|
n=208
|
|
Sum needs overall (0 - 15), mean (SD)
|
4.38
|
(0.14)
|
4.65
|
(0.22)
|
4.13
|
(0.19)
|
.074
|
Sum unaddressed needs (0 - 8), mean (SD)
|
0.60
|
(0.05)
|
0.60
|
(0.08)
|
0.59
|
(0.07)
|
.927
|
* Statistically significant difference between control and intervention group on a level of significance of α<0.05; a:Total n of sample = 395; n of Control Group = 190; n of Intervention Group = 205; b:Total n of sample = 399; n of Control Group = 192; n of Intervention Group = 207; c:Total n of sample = 399; n of Control Group = 190; n of Intervention Group = 209,d: Total n of sample = 391; n of Control Group = 187; n of Intervention Group = 204; e:Total n of sample = 390; n of Control Group = 182; n of Intervention Group = 208; f: Total n of sample = 392; n of Control Group = 185; n of Intervention Group = 207; g:Total n of sample = 389; n of Control Group = 183; n of Intervention Group = 206; h: Total n of sample = 386; n of Control Group = 184; n of Intervention Group = 202; i: Total n of sample = 354; n of Control Group = 164; n of Intervention Group = 190; j: Total n of sample = 366; n of Control Group = 177; n of Intervention Group = 189; different n’s due to missing data.
A total of n=197 patients had been assigned a care level (52.3%). The most frequent care level was level 2 (46.1%), followed by level 3 (33.0%). There was a statistically significant difference between the control and intervention group. In the control group more patients had been assigned a care level (56.4% versus 43.8%). The differences in the single care levels between the study groups are shown in table 4.
Analyzing utilization of health care professionals in the last 12 months, 74.9% had one or two hospital stays, 25.1% visited the hospital more often. Rehabilitation was used by 11.8% of the sample. We found no statistical differences for these variables between the groups. The frequency of using ambulatory care was 38.8% in the total sample. In the control group, 45.9% of the patients used ambulatory care, in the intervention group just 32.4%, resulting in a statistically significant difference. Considering total formal care, 3.3% of the population had all day and night care. Patients in the control group used total formal care more frequently than the intervention group (5.5% versus 1.5%), a statistically significant difference. 10.9% of the control group utilized short-term care, contrasting with 4.0% of the intervention group (7.3% in total), resulting in a statistically significant difference. The frequency of using care counselling was 21.2% in the whole sample. In the control group, 27.4% of the patients received previous care counselling, but just 15.8% of the patients in the intervention group, a statistically significant difference. There was also a statistically significant difference between the intervention and control group in respect to the utilization of additional care services. A larger proportion of patients in the control group used additional care services than the intervention group (26.0% versus 17.5%). There was no statistically significant difference between the study groups for the sum of needs, these ranged from 0 – 15 needs overall and 0 – 8 unaddressed needs. On average, the sample shows 4.38 needs in general, of which 0.60 needs are unaddressed.
The comparison between the hospital recruiting sites shows that 63.5% of the patients in hospital 3 and 65.8% of the patients in hospital 1 live alone, but just 45.9% of the patients in hospital 2, resulting in a statistically significant difference. The sites also differed in respect to several patients’ clinical variables. Furthermore differences between the hospitals were found in the number of the needs overall as well as the unmet needs. The participants recruited in hospital 1 showed significantly less unmet needs. There was, however, no difference in any other sociodemographic variable. For details, see table 5.
Table 5 Clinical variables in comparison between the hospitals
|
Hospital 1
(n=200)
|
Hospital 2
(n=62)
|
Hospital 3
(n=139)
|
p-value
|
Cognitive status (MMSE)
|
n=200
|
n=62
|
n=139
|
|
Score, (10 - 26), mean (SD)
|
22.9
|
(3.1)
|
21.6
|
(3.9)
|
21.4
|
(4.1)
|
<.001*
|
Mild cognitive impairment (score 20 - 26), n (%)
|
169
|
84.5%
|
50
|
80.6%
|
104
|
74.8%
|
.086
|
Moderate cognitive impairment (score 10 - 19), n (%)
|
31
|
15.5%
|
12
|
19.4%
|
35
|
25.2%
|
|
Functional Status (Barthel)
|
n=200
|
n=62
|
n=138
|
|
Score, mean (SD)
|
52.6
|
(15.3)
|
55.7
|
(11.8)
|
44.9
|
(15.4)
|
<.001*
|
HABAM
|
n=200
|
n=62
|
n=139
|
|
Score (0 - 26), mean (SD)
|
20.0
|
(5.7)
|
21.8
|
(4.8)
|
16.7
|
(5.8)
|
<.001*
|
Balancea (0 - 21), mean (SD)
|
16.4
|
(5.7)
|
8.1
|
(7.1)
|
9.4
|
(5.8)
|
<.001*
|
Transferb (0 - 18), mean (SD)
|
15.9
|
(4.3)
|
14.2
|
(5.4)
|
12.7
|
(5.3)
|
<.001*
|
Mobilityc (0 - 26), mean (SD)
|
18.9
|
(6.3)
|
14.2
|
(9.3)
|
12.6
|
(7.4)
|
<.001*
|
Edmonton Frailty Index
|
n=198
|
n=60
|
n=121
|
|
Score, (2 - 15), mean (SD)
|
6.6
|
(2.3)
|
6.2
|
(1.8)
|
9.0
|
(2.2)
|
<.001*
|
Level of impairment
|
n=196
|
n=62
|
n=138
|
|
Yes, n (%)
|
100
|
51.0%
|
23
|
37.1%
|
74
|
53.6%
|
.085
|
Care Level
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
None, n (%)
|
96
|
50.3%
|
39
|
63.9%
|
64
|
46.4%
|
.020*
|
1, n (%)
|
12
|
6.3%
|
8
|
13.1%
|
9
|
6.5%
|
|
2, n (%)
|
43
|
22.5%
|
9
|
14.8%
|
36
|
26.1%
|
|
3, n (%)
|
32
|
16.8%
|
4
|
6.6%
|
27
|
19.6%
|
|
4, n (%)
|
8
|
4.2%
|
0
|
0.0%
|
2
|
1.4%
|
|
5, n (%)
|
0
|
0.0%
|
1
|
1.6%
|
0
|
0.0%
|
|
Diagnosis of dementia (ICD-10)
|
n=200
|
n=62
|
n=139
|
|
Yes, n (%)
|
4
|
2.0%
|
1
|
1.6%
|
7
|
5.0%
|
.214
|
Geriatric Diagnosis (ICD-10)
|
n=200
|
n=62
|
n=139
|
|
Yes, n (%)
|
76
|
38.0%
|
8
|
12.9%
|
104
|
74.8%
|
<.001*
|
Delirium possible
|
n=200
|
n=50
|
n=137
|
|
Yes, n (%)
|
9
|
4.5%
|
2
|
4.0%
|
20
|
14.6%
|
.002*
|
Depression
|
n=200
|
n=62
|
n=139
|
|
At least one main symptom of depression according to DSM-V, n (%)
|
17
|
8.5%
|
11
|
17.7%
|
49
|
35.3%
|
<.001*
|
Pharmacological treatment
|
n=197
|
n=62
|
n=139
|
|
Total number of regularly taken drugs, mean (SD)
|
7.5
|
(3.8)
|
7.2
|
(4.4)
|
9.8
|
(3.2)
|
<.001*
|
Utilization of health care services (preceding year)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hospital stayd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One or two hospital staysd, n (%)
|
158
|
79.8%
|
48
|
80.0%
|
87
|
65.4%
|
.008*
|
More than two hospital staysd, n (%)
|
40
|
20.2%
|
12
|
20.0%
|
46
|
34.6%
|
|
Rehabilitatione,, n (%)
|
28
|
14.4%
|
1
|
1.6%
|
17
|
12.6%
|
.024*
|
Ambulatory caref, n (%)
|
67
|
34.2%
|
18
|
29.5%
|
67
|
49.6%
|
.005*
|
Total formal care (all day & night care) g, n (%)
|
5
|
2.6%
|
1
|
1.6%
|
7
|
5.3%
|
.287
|
Short term careh, n (%)
|
22
|
11.3%
|
0
|
0.0%
|
6
|
4.6%
|
.004*
|
Care counsellingi, n (%)
|
53
|
28.8%
|
9
|
15.8%
|
13
|
11.5%
|
.001*
|
Additional care servicesj, n (%)
|
23
|
12.2%
|
1
|
1.7%
|
55
|
47.0%
|
<.001*
|
CANE
|
n=196
|
n=62
|
n=138
|
|
Sum needs overall (0 - 15), mean (SD)
|
3.60
|
(0.17)
|
5.19
|
(0.47)
|
5.13
|
(0.25)
|
<.001*
|
Sum unaddressed needs (0 - 8), mean (SD)
|
0.21
|
(0.05)
|
1.29
|
(0.20)
|
0.83
|
(0.08)
|
<.001*
|
* Statistically significant difference between the hospitals on a level of significance of α<0.05; a:Total n of sample = 395; n of hospital 1 = 200; n of hospital 2 = 62; n of hospital 3 = 133; b: Total n of sample = 399; n of hospital 1 = 200; n of hospital 2 = 61; n of hospital 3 = 138; c: Total n of sample = 399; n of hospital 1 = 200; n of hospital 2 = 62; n of hospital 3 = 137; d: Total n of sample = 391; n of hospital 1 = 198; n of hospital 2 = 60; n of hospital 3 = 133; e: Total n of sample = 390; n of hospital 1 = 194; n of hospital 2 = 61; n of hospital 3 = 135; f: Total n of sample = 392; n of hospital 1 = 196; n of hospital 2 = 61; n of hospital 3 = 135; g: Total n of sample = 389; n of hospital 1 = 196; n of hospital 2 = 61; n of hospital 3 = 132; h: Total n of sample = 386; n of hospital 1 = 194; n of hospital 2 = 61; n of hospital 3 = 131; i: Total n of sample = 354; n of hospital 1 = 184; n of hospital 2 = 57; n of hospital 3 = 113; j: Total n of sample = 366; n of hospital 1 = 189; n of hospital 2 = 60; n of hospital 3 = 117; different n’s due to missing data.
There is a statistically significant sex difference in age and living status in the sample; female patients were older than males (83.0 versus 81.5 years) and lived alone more often (63.6% versus 34.7%). A difference in family status was not found. These differences are shown in table 6.
Table 6 Sociodemographic variables in comparison between sexes
|
Total sample
(n=401)
|
Male
(n=147)
|
Female
(n=254)
|
p-value
|
Age, mean [years] (SD)
|
82.4
|
(6.1)
|
81.5
|
(5.9)
|
83.0
|
(6.1)
|
.013*
|
Family status
|
n=391
|
n=142
|
n=249
|
|
single
|
17
|
4.3%
|
8
|
5.6%
|
9
|
3.6%
|
<.001*
|
married
|
142
|
36.3%
|
88
|
62.0%
|
54
|
21.7%
|
|
divorced
|
23
|
5.9%
|
5
|
3.5%
|
18
|
7.2%
|
|
widowed
|
209
|
53.5%
|
41
|
28.9%
|
168
|
67.5%
|
|
Living alone
|
n=391
|
n=142
|
n=249
|
|
(yes), n (%)
|
244
|
61.9%
|
50
|
34.7%
|
131
|
63.6%
|
<.001*
|
Having children
|
n=391
|
n=140
|
n=251
|
|
(yes), n (%)
|
351
|
89.8%
|
129
|
92.1%
|
222
|
88.4%
|
.163
|
* Statistically significant difference between control and intervention group on a level of significance of α<0.05; different n’s due to missing data.
Furthermore, there is a sex difference in clinical variables. Regarding geriatric diagnoses and a possible delirium, more males had these diagnoses. For utilization of health care services, female patients used ambulatory care (42.6% versus 31.9%) and short-term care (9.3% versus 3.6%) more often. No other variable of utilization showed a statistically significant sex difference. Regarding the assessment of needs, male participants indicated more unmet needs, than the female participants (0.76 vs. 0.50) while showing no statistically significant difference in the sum of needs overall.
Table 7 Clinical variables in comparison between sexes
|
Total sample
(n=401)
|
Male
(n=147)
|
Female
(n=254)
|
p-value
|
Cognitive status (MMSE)
|
n=401
|
n=147
|
n=254
|
|
Score, (10 - 26), mean (SD)
|
22.2
|
(3.6)
|
21.9
|
(4.0)
|
22.3
|
(3.5)
|
.273
|
Mild cognitive impairment (score 20-26), n (%)
|
323
|
80.5%
|
116
|
78.9%
|
207
|
81.5%
|
.307
|
Moderate cognitive impairment (score 10-19), n (%)
|
78
|
19.5%
|
31
|
21.1%
|
47
|
18.5%
|
|
Functional Status (Barthel)
|
n=400
|
n=146
|
n=254
|
|
Score, mean (SD)
|
50.4
|
(15.4)
|
49.1
|
(16.1)
|
51.1
|
(14.9)
|
.196
|
HABAM
|
n=401
|
n=147
|
n=254
|
|
Score (0 - 26), mean (SD)
|
19.1
|
(5.9)
|
19.3
|
(6.3)
|
19.1
|
(5.7)
|
.762
|
Balancea (0 - 21), mean (SD)
|
12.7
|
(7.0)
|
12.3
|
(7.3)
|
13.0
|
(6.9)
|
.300
|
Transferb (0 - 18), mean (SD)
|
14.5
|
(5.0)
|
14.6
|
(5.0)
|
14.5
|
(5.1)
|
.812
|
Mobilityc (0 - 26),mean (SD)
|
16.0
|
(7.8)
|
15.9
|
(8.2)
|
16.1
|
(7.6)
|
.850
|
Edmonton Frailty Index
|
n=397
|
n=145
|
n=252
|
|
Score, (2 - 15), mean (SD)
|
7.4
|
(2.5)
|
7.6
|
(2.4)
|
7.2
|
(2.5)
|
.136
|
Level of impairment
|
n=396
|
n=144
|
n=252
|
|
Yes, n (%)
|
197
|
50.3%
|
64
|
44.4%
|
133
|
52.8%
|
.068
|
Care level
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
None, n (%)
|
199
|
51.0%
|
80
|
56.3%
|
119
|
48.0%
|
.338
|
1, n (%)
|
29
|
7.4%
|
9
|
6.3%
|
20
|
8.1%
|
|
2, n (%)
|
88
|
22.6%
|
24
|
16.9%
|
64
|
25.8%
|
|
3, n (%)
|
63
|
16.2%
|
26
|
18.3%
|
37
|
14.9%
|
|
4, n (%)
|
10
|
2.6%
|
3
|
2.1%
|
7
|
2.8%
|
|
5, n (%)
|
1
|
0.3%
|
0
|
0.0%
|
1
|
0.4%
|
|
Diagnosis of dementia (ICD-10)
|
n=401
|
n=147
|
n=254
|
|
Yes, n (%)
|
12
|
3.0%
|
2
|
1.4%
|
10
|
3.9%
|
.122
|
Geriatric Diagnosis (ICD-10)
|
n=401
|
n=147
|
n=254
|
|
Yes, n (%)
|
188
|
46.9%
|
76
|
51.7%
|
112
|
44.1%
|
.086
|
Delirium possible
|
n=387
|
n=140
|
n=247
|
|
Yes, n (%)
|
31
|
8.0%
|
19
|
13.6%
|
12
|
4.9%
|
.003*
|
Depression
|
n=401
|
n=147
|
n=254
|
|
At least one main symptom of depression according to DSM-V, n (%)
|
77
|
19.2%
|
27
|
18.4%
|
50
|
19.7%
|
.427
|
Pharmacological treatment
|
n=398
|
n=145
|
n=253
|
|
Total number of regularly taken drugs, mean (SD)
|
8.2
|
(3.8)
|
8.7
|
(3.6)
|
8.0
|
(4.0)
|
.064
|
Utilization of health care services (preceding year)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hospital stayd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One or two hospital staysd, n (%)
|
293
|
74.9%
|
103
|
72.0%
|
190
|
76.6%
|
.187
|
More than two hospital staysd, n (%)
|
98
|
25.1%
|
40
|
28.0%
|
58
|
23.4%
|
|
Rehabilitatione, n (%)
|
46
|
11.8%
|
13
|
9.2%
|
33
|
13.3%
|
.153
|
Ambulatory caref, n (%)
|
152
|
38.8%
|
45
|
31.9%
|
107
|
42.6%
|
.023*
|
Total formal care (all day & night care)g, n (%)
|
13
|
3.3%
|
2
|
1.4%
|
11
|
4.4%
|
.093
|
Short term careh, n (%)
|
28
|
7.3%
|
5
|
3.6%
|
23
|
9.3%
|
.025*
|
Care counsellingi, n (%)
|
75
|
21.2%
|
28
|
20.9%
|
47
|
21.4%
|
.514
|
Additional care servicesj, n (%)
|
79
|
21.6%
|
27
|
20.1%
|
52
|
22.4%
|
.356
|
CANE
|
n=396
|
n=147
|
n=254
|
|
Sum needs overall (0 - 15), mean (SD)
|
4.38
|
(0.14)
|
4.17
|
(0.25)
|
4.50
|
(0.17)
|
.269
|
Sum unaddressed needs (0 - 8), mean (SD)
|
0.60
|
(0.05)
|
0.76
|
(0.11)
|
0.50
|
(0.05)
|
.033*
|
* Statistically significant difference between sex on a level of significance of α<0.05; a:Total n of sample = 395; n of male = 144; n of female = 251; b: Total n of sample = 399; n of male = 146; n of female = 253; c: Total n of sample = 399; n of male = 146; n of female = 253; d: Total n of sample = 391; n of male = 143; n of female = 248; e: Total n of sample = 390; n of male = 141; n of female = 249; f: Total n of sample = 392; n of male = 141; n of female = 251; g: Total n of sample = 389; n of male = 141; n of female = 248; h: Total n of sample = 386; n of male =140; n of female = 246; i: Total n of sample = 354; n of male = 134; n of female = 220; j: Total n of sample = 366; n of male = 134; n of female = 232; different n’s due to missing data.