Long-term diseases are today the leading cause of mortality worldwide and are estimated to be the leading cause of disability by 2020. Person-centered care (PCC) has been shown to advance concordance between care provider and patient on treatment plans, improve health outcomes and increase patient satisfaction. Yet, despite these and other documented benefits, there are a variety of significant challenges to putting PCC into clinical practice. Although care providers today broadly acknowledge PCC to be an important part of care, in our experience we must establish routines that initiate, integrate, and safeguard PCC in daily clinical practice to ensure that PCC is systematically and consistently practiced, i.e. not just when we feel we have time for it. In this paper, we propose a few simple routines to facilitate and safeguard the transition to PCC. We believe that if conscientiously and systematically applied, they will help to make PCC the focus and mainstay of care in long-term illness.

To improve health care for older persons, we need to learn more about ageing, e.g. identify protective factors and early markers for diseases. The Gothenburg H70 Birth Cohort Studies (the H70 studies) are multidisciplinary epidemiological studies examining representative birth cohorts of older populations in Gothenburg, Sweden. So far, six birth cohorts of 70-year-olds have been examined over time, and examinations have been virtually identical between studies. This paper describes the study procedures for the baseline examination of the Birth cohort 1944, conducted in 2014–16. In this study, all men and women born 1944 on specific dates, and registered as residents in Gothenburg, were eligible for participation (n = 1839). A total of 1203 (response rate 72.2%; 559 men and 644 women; mean age 70.5 years) agreed to participate in the study. The study comprised sampling of blood and cerebrospinal fluid, psychiatric, cognitive, and physical health examinations, examinations of genetics and family history, use of medications, social factors, functional ability and disability, physical fitness and activity, body composition, lung function, audiological and ophthalmological examinations, diet, brain imaging, as well as a close informant interview, and qualitative studies. As in previous examinations, data collection serves as a basis for future longitudinal follow-up examinations. The research gained from the H70 studies has clinical relevance in relation to prevention, early diagnosis, clinical course, experience of illness, understanding pathogenesis and prognosis. Results will increase our understanding of ageing and inform service development, which may lead to enhanced quality of care for older persons. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10654-018-0459-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundThe very old (80+) are often described as a "frail" group that is particularly exposed to diseases and functional disability. They are at great risk of losing the ability to manage their activities of daily living independently. A health-promoting intervention programme might prevent or delay dependence in activities of daily life and the development of functional decline. Studies have shown that those who benefit most from a health-promoting and disease-preventive programme are persons with no, or discrete, activity restrictions. The three-armed study "Elderly in the risk zone" is designed to evaluate if multi-dimensional and multi-professional educational senior meetings are more effective than preventive home visits, and if it is possible to prevent or delay deterioration if an intervention is made when the persons are not so frail. In this paper the study design, the intervention and the outcome measures as well as the baseline characteristics of the study participants are presented.Methods/DesignThe study is a randomised three-armed single-blind controlled trial with follow-ups 3 months, 1 and 2 years. The study group should comprise a representative sample of pre-frail 80-year old persons still living at home in two municipalities of Gothenburg. To allow for drop-outs, it was estimated that a total of about 450 persons would need to be included in the study. The participants should live in their ordinary housing and not be dependent on the municipal home help service or care. Further, they should be independent of help from another person in activities of daily living and be cognitively intact, having a score of 25 or higher as assessed with the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE).DiscussionWe believe that the design of the study, the randomisation procedure, outcome measurements and the study protocol meetings should ensure the quality of the study. Furthermore, the multi-dimensionality of the intervention, the involvement of both the professionals and the senior citizens in the planning of the intervention should have the potential to effectively target the heterogeneous needs of the elderly.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00877058

Objectives To examine the outcomes of the Elderly Persons in the Risk Zone study, which was designed to evaluate whether it is possible to delay deterioration if a health‐promoting intervention is made when an older adult (≥80) is at risk of becoming frail and whether a multiprofessional group intervention is more effective in delaying deterioration than a single preventive home visit with regard to frailty, self‐rated health, and activities of daily living (ADLs) at 3‐month follow‐up. Design Randomized, three‐armed, single‐blind, controlled trial performed between November 2007 and May 2011. Setting Two urban districts of Gothenburg, Sweden. Participants Four hundred fifty‐nine community‐living adults aged 80 and older not dependent on the municipal home help service. Intervention A preventive home visit or four weekly multiprofessional senior group meetings with one follow‐up home visit. Measurements Change in frailty, self‐rated health, and ADLs between baseline and 3‐month follow‐up. Results Both interventions delayed deterioration of self‐rated health (odds ratio (OR) = 1.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.12–3.54). Senior meetings were the most beneficial intervention for postponing dependence in ADLs (OR = 1.95, 95% CI = 1.14–3.33). No effect on frailty could be demonstrated. Conclusion Health‐promoting interventions made when older adults are at risk of becoming frail can delay deterioration in self‐rated health and ADLs in the short term. A multiprofessional group intervention such as the senior meetings described seems to have a greater effect on delaying deterioration in ADLs than a single preventive home visit. Further research is needed to examine the outcome in the long term and in different contexts.