Running title: Effect of coordinated preventive care for healthy ageing 34 Impact statement: We certify that this work is novel. This study showed that a general 35 template for preventive integrated care aimed at healthy ageing can successfully be 36 implemented in various European settings. 37 Word count text: 4594 Word count abstract: 400 Number Tables: 4 38 Number Figures: 1 Supplements: 7 Number references: 53 39 40 2 effect paper UHCE_IJNS_revised2ABSTRACT 41 Background: Older persons often have multiple health and social problems and need a variety 42 of health services. A coordinated preventive approach that integrates the provision of health 43 and social care services could promote healthy ageing. Such an approach can be organised 44 differently, depending on the availability and organizational structures in the local context. 45 Therefore, it is important to evaluate the effectiveness of a coordinated preventive care 46 approach in various European settings. 47 Objectives: This study explored the effects of a coordinated preventive health and social care 48 approach on the lifestyle, health and quality of life of community-dwelling older persons in five 49 European cities. 50 Design: International multi-center pre-post controlled trial. 51 Setting: Community settings in cities in the United Kingdom, Greece, Croatia, the Netherlands 52 and Spain. 53 Participants: 1844 community-dwelling older persons (mean age=79.5; SD=5.6). 54 Methods: The Urban Health Centres Europe (UHCE) approach consisted of a preventive 55 multidimensional health assessment and, if a person was at-risk, coordinated care-pathways 56 targeted at fall risk, appropriate medication use, loneliness and frailty. Intervention and control 57 sites were chosen based on their location in distinct neighbourhoods in the participating cities. 58 Persons in the catchment area of the intervention sites 'the intervention group' received the 59 UHCE approach and persons in catchment areas of the control sites 'the control group' received 60 care as usual. A questionnaire and two measurements were taken at baseline and at one-year 61 3 effect paper UHCE_IJNS_revised2 follow-up to assess healthy lifestyle, fall risk, appropriate medication use, loneliness level, 62 frailty, level of independence, health-related quality of life and care use. To evaluate 63 differences in outcomes between intervention group and control group for the total study 64 population, for those who received follow-up care-pathways and for each city separately 65 (multilevel) logistic and linear regression analyses were used. 66 Results: Persons in the intervention group had less recurrent falls (OR= 0.65, 95% CI = 0.48; 67 0.88) and lower frailty (B=-0.43, 95% CI= -0.65--0.22) at follow-up compared with persons in 68 the control group. Physical health-related quality of life and mental well-being was better 69 (B=0.95; 95% CI= 0.14-1.76; and B=1.50; 95% CI=0.15-2.84 respectively). The effects of the 70 UHCE approach were stronger in the subgroup of persons (53.6%) enrolled in c...

Objective: This systematic review aims (1) to identify barriers and facilitators during implementation of primary preventive interventions on patient handling in healthcare, and (2) to assess their influence on the effectiveness of these interventions. Methods: PubMed and Web of Science were searched from January 1988 to July 2007. Study inclusion criteria included evaluation of a primary preventive intervention on patient handling, quantitative assessment of the effect of the intervention on physical load or musculoskeletal disorders or sick leave, and information on barriers or facilitators in the implementation of the intervention. 19 studies were included, comprising engineering (n = 10), personal (n = 6) and multiple interventions (n = 3). Barriers and facilitators were classified into individual and environmental categories of factors that hampered or enhanced the appropriate implementation of the intervention. Results: 16 individual and 45 environmental barriers and facilitators were identified. The most important environmental categories were ''convenience and easy accessibility'' (56%), ''supportive management climate'' (18%) and ''patient-related factors'' (11%). An important individual category was motivation (63%). None of the studies quantified their impact on effectiveness nor on compliance and adherence to the intervention. Conclusion: Various factors may influence the appropriate implementation of primary preventive interventions, but their impact on the effectiveness of the interventions was not evaluated. Since barriers in implementation are often acknowledged as the cause of the ineffectiveness of patient handling devices, there is a clear need to quantify the influence of these barriers on the effectiveness of primary preventive interventions in healthcare.Among healthcare staff the prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) is higher than in most other occupations.1 Patient handling activities are a major cause of MSDs among nursing personnel. 2The high occurrence of MSDs has important consequences due to substantial health care utilisation, sickness absence and permanent disability.3 A wide range of primary preventive interventions have been developed in the past to reduce physical load related to patient handling and therefore decrease the occurrence of MSDs. Conflicting results have been found for engineering interventions such as lifting devices.4 5 There is strong evidence that personal interventions alone, such as training on preferred patient handling techniques, are not effective.6 7 Either these techniques did not reduce the risk of back injury or the training did not lead to adequate change in lifting and handling techniques.7 Administrative interventions, targeting work practices and policies, are often an integral part of a more comprehensive intervention. There is moderate evidence for the effectiveness of multidimensional interventions, which are being applied more often recently.4 6 Nelson and Baptiste described several barriers in the implementation of patient han...

This study indicates that good implementation of lifting devices is required to noticeably reduce LBP and injury claims. This health impact assessment may guide intervention studies as well as implementation of programmes to reduce manual lifting of patients in healthcare settings.

BackgroundOlder persons often have interacting physical and social problems and complex care needs. An integrated care approach in the local context with collaborations between community-, social-, and health-focused organisations can contribute to the promotion of independent living and quality of life. In the Urban Health Centres Europe (UHCE) project, five European cities (Greater Manchester, United Kingdom; Pallini (in Greater Athens Area), Greece; Rijeka, Croatia; Rotterdam, the Netherlands; and Valencia, Spain) develop and implement a care template that integrates health and social care and includes a preventive approach. The UHCE project includes an effect and process evaluation.MethodsIn a one-year pre-post controlled trial, in each city 250 participants aged 75+ years are recruited to receive the UHCE approach and are compared with 250 participants who receive ‘care as usual’. Benefits of UHCE approach in terms of healthy life styles, fall risk, appropriate medication use, loneliness level and frailty, and in terms of level of independence and health-related quality of life and health care use are assessed. A multilevel modeling approach is used for the analyses. The process evaluation is used to provide insight into the reach of the target population, the extent to which elements of the UHCE approach are executed as planned and the satisfaction of the participants.DiscussionThe UHCE project will provide new insight into the feasibility and effectiveness of an integrated care approach for older persons in different European settings.Trial registrationISRCTN registry number is ISRCTN52788952. Date of registration is 13/03/2017.