Stay well and healthy! Pilot study findings from an inhome preventive healthcare programme for persons ageing with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities
Stay well and healthy! Pilot study findings from an inhome preventive healthcare programme for persons ageing with intellectual and/or developmental disabilities
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1468-3148.2005.00245.x
复制
发表时间：
2005-06-01
影响因子：
2.4
通讯作者：
Hahn, JE
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Aronow, HU;Hahn, JE
背景：虽然智力和发育残疾老年人的健康状况存在差异，但缺乏针对这一人群在身体、情感、社会和环境健康方面的个人风险的干预措施。这项试点研究评估了两种家庭干预措施的可行性，这些措施旨在减少智力和发育残疾老年人的健康风险并改善健康结果。方法制定干预措施和评估工具。招募了生活在非机构环境中的32岁及以上的智力和发育障碍成年人（n = 201），并将其分配给高级执业护士（APN）干预的家庭多维评估、有针对性的建议和随访（n = 101）或家庭健康风险评估（HRA） （n = 100）。结果本研究开发的干预措施、评估工具和方法在轻度至中度智力和发育障碍人群中具有可行性。此外，在样本中发现了高水平的健康风险（平均值= 5.0；范围0-16），这表明需要采取有效的干预措施。两个试验组在基线和随访期间均显示健康风险显著降低。需要进一步严格的随机现场试验来检验每种干预措施的有效性。结论以社区为基础的预防干预措施在该人群的随机试验中是可行的。
Background While disparities in the health status for persons ageing with intellectual and developmental disabilities have been well documented, interventions that address individual risks in physical, emotional, social and environmental health among this population are lacking. This pilot study evaluated the feasibility of two inhome interventions designed to reduce health risks and improve health outcomes among persons ageing with intellectual and developmental disabilities.Method Interventions and assessment tools were developed. Adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities, aged 32 and over (n = 201) living in non-institutional settings were recruited and assigned to either an advance practice nurse (APN) intervention of inhome multidimensional assessment, targeted recommendations and follow-up visits (n = 101) or an inhome health risk appraisal (HRA) with printed feedback only (n = 100).Results The development and pilot testing of the interventions, assessment tools and methods demonstrated feasibility in the population from mild to moderate intellectual and developmental disabilities. In addition, high levels of health risks were identified (mean = 5.0; range 0-16) in the sample suggesting the need for effective interventions. Both pilot groups showed significant reduction in health risks between baseline and follow-up. Further rigorous randomized field trials are required to test the effectiveness of each intervention.Conclusions Community-based preventive interventions are feasible for randomized trials in this population.