Effect of a Biobehavioral Environmental Approach on Disability Among Low-Income Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial | Geriatrics | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure 1.  CONSORT Flow Diagram
CONSORT Flow Diagram
Figure 2.  Survey Responses by Intervention and Control Group Participants
Survey Responses by Intervention and Control Group Participants

At 5 months or program completion, participants were asked to complete a 10-item survey that assesses their satisfaction with aspects of the CAPABLE program, including (1) overall benefit, (2-9) how the program addressed specific functional goals, and (10) whether the program required too much work or effort. Participants could pick 1 of 3 responses for each question: not at all, some, or a great deal.

Table 1.  Baseline Characteristics by Treatment Group
Baseline Characteristics by Treatment Group
Table 2.  Comparison of Control and Intervention Group Participants at 5 Months and 12 Months
Comparison of Control and Intervention Group Participants at 5 Months and 12 Months
1.
Freedman  VA, Spillman  BC.  The residential continuum from home to nursing home: size, characteristics and unmet needs of older adults.  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2014;69(suppl 1):S42-S50. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbu120PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Arnau  A, Espaulella  J, Serrarols  M, Canudas  J, Formiga  F, Ferrer  M.  Risk factors for functional decline in a population aged 75 years and older without total dependence: A one-year follow-up.  Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2016;65:239-247. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2016.04.002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Gitlin  LN, Hauck  WW, Winter  L, Dennis  MP, Schulz  R.  Effect of an in-home occupational and physical therapy intervention on reducing mortality in functionally vulnerable older people: preliminary findings.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(6):950-955. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00733.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Fuller-Thomson  E, Nuru-Jeter  A, Minkler  M, Guralnik  JM.  Black-White disparities in disability among older Americans: further untangling the role of race and socioeconomic status.  J Aging Health. 2009;21(5):677-698. doi:10.1177/0898264309338296PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Minkler  M, Fuller-Thomson  E, Guralnik  JM.  Gradient of disability across the socioeconomic spectrum in the United States.  N Engl J Med. 2006;355(7):695-703. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa044316PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Cho  J, Cook  C, Bruin  MJ.  Functional ability, neighborhood resources and housing satisfaction among older adults in the U.S.  J Hous Elder. 2012;26(4):395-412. doi:10.1080/02763893.2012.724376Google ScholarCrossref
7.
Cho  HY, MacLachlan  M, Clarke  M, Mannan  H.  Accessible Home Environments for People with Functional Limitations: A Systematic Review.  Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(8):826. doi:10.3390/ijerph13080826PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Alley  DE, Asomugha  CN, Conway  PH, Sanghavi  DM.  Accountable Health Communities–Addressing Social Needs through Medicare and Medicaid.  N Engl J Med. 2016;374(1):8-11. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1512532PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Gitlin  LN, Hauck  WW, Dennis  MP, Winter  L, Hodgson  N, Schinfeld  S.  Long-term effect on mortality of a home intervention that reduces functional difficulties in older adults: results from a randomized trial.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(3):476-481. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02147.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Starfield  B.  Is patient-centered care the same as person-focused care?  Perm J. 2011;15(2):63-69. doi:10.7812/TPP/10-148PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Gitlin  LN, Winter  L, Dennis  MP, Corcoran  M, Schinfeld  S, Hauck  WW.  A randomized trial of a multicomponent home intervention to reduce functional difficulties in older adults.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(5):809-816. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00703.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Szanton  SL, Wolff  JW, Leff  B,  et al.  CAPABLE trial: a randomized controlled trial of nurse, occupational therapist and handyman to reduce disability among older adults: rationale and design.  Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;38(1):102-112. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2014.03.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Szanton  SL, Thorpe  RJ, Boyd  C,  et al.  Community aging in place, advancing better living for elders: a bio-behavioral-environmental intervention to improve function and health-related quality of life in disabled older adults.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(12):2314-2320. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03698.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Szanton  SL, Leff  B, Wolff  JL, Roberts  L, Gitlin  LN.  Home-Based Care Program Reduces Disability And Promotes Aging In Place.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(9):1558-1563. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0140PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Folstein  MF, Folstein  SE, McHugh  PR.  “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician.  J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189-198.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Katz  S, Ford  AB, Moskowitz  RW, Jackson  BA, Jaffe  MW.  Studies of illness in the aged. the index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function.  JAMA. 1963;185:914-919. doi:10.1001/jama.1963.03060120024016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Lawton  MP, Brody  EM.  Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living.  Gerontologist. 1969;9(3):179-186. doi:10.1093/geront/9.3_Part_1.179PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
HealthCare.Gov. Federal poverty level. Healthcare.gov. https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/. Accessed March 15, 2012.
19.
Gitlin  LN, Harris  LF, McCoy  M, Chernett  NL, Jutkowitz  E, Pizzi  LT; Beat the Blues Team.  A community-integrated home based depression intervention for older African Americans: [corrected] description of the Beat the Blues randomized trial and intervention costs.  BMC Geriatr. 2012;12:4. doi:10.1186/1471-2318-12-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Frick  KD, Kung  JY, Parrish  JM, Narrett  MJ.  Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of fall prevention programs that reduce fall-related hip fractures in older adults.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(1):136-141. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02575.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Wallace  M, Shelkey  M.  Monitoring functional status in hospitalized older adults.  Am J Nurs. 2008;108(4):64-71. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000315266.66521.e7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Gill  TM, Baker  DI, Gottschalk  M, Peduzzi  PN, Allore  H, Byers  A.  A program to prevent functional decline in physically frail, elderly persons who live at home.  N Engl J Med. 2002;347(14):1068-1074. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa020423PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Gitlin  LN, Winter  L, Dennis  MP, Hodgson  N, Hauck  WW.  A biobehavioral home-based intervention and the well-being of patients with dementia and their caregivers: the COPE randomized trial.  JAMA. 2010;304(9):983-991.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Gutierrez  RG, Carter  S, Drukker  DM.  On boundary-value likelihood-ratio tests.  Stata Tech Bull. 2001;10(60):15-20.Google Scholar
25.
McCullagh  P, Nelder  J.  Generalized Linear Models. 2nd ed. London, UK: Chapman and Hall; 1994.
26.
Hausman  JA, Hall  BH, Griliches  Z.  Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship.  Econometrica. 1984;52(4):909-938. doi:10.2307/1911191Google ScholarCrossref
27.
Bentley  JP, Brown  CJ, McGwin  G  Jr, Sawyer  P, Allman  RM, Roth  DL.  Functional status, life-space mobility, and quality of life: a longitudinal mediation analysis.  Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1621-1632. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0315-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Barile  JP, Thompson  WW, Zack  MM, Krahn  GL, Horner-Johnson  W, Haffer  SC.  Activities of daily living, chronic medical conditions, and health-related quality of life in older adults.  J Ambul Care Manage. 2012;35(4):292-303. doi:10.1097/JAC.0b013e31826746f5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Perrin  NA, Stiefel  M, Mosen  DM, Bauck  A, Shuster  E, Dirks  EM.  Self-reported health and functional status information improves prediction of inpatient admissions and costs.  Am J Manag Care. 2011;17(12):e472-e478.PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.
Alecxih  L, Shen  S, Chan  I. Individuals living in the community with chronic conditions and functional limitations: a closer look. Office of The Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/2010/closerlook.pdf . Published January 1, 2010. Accessed September 10, 2017.
31.
Lines  LM, Lepore  M, Wiener  JM.  Patient-centered, Person-centered, and Person-directed Care: They are Not the Same.  Med Care. 2015;53(7):561-563. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000387PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Bodenheimer  T, Lorig  K, Holman  H, Grumbach  K.  Patient self-management of chronic disease in primary care.  JAMA. 2002;288(19):2469-2475. doi:10.1001/jama.288.19.2469PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Reuben  DB, Tinetti  ME.  Goal-oriented patient care–an alternative health outcomes paradigm.  N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):777-779. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1113631PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Wahl  HW, Fänge  A, Oswald  F, Gitlin  LN, Iwarsson  S.  The home environment and disability-related outcomes in aging individuals: what is the empirical evidence?  Gerontologist. 2009;49(3):355-367. doi:10.1093/geront/gnp056PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
35.
Belle  SH, Burgio  L, Burns  R,  et al; Resources for Enhancing Alzheimer’s Caregiver Health (REACH) II Investigators.  Enhancing the quality of life of dementia caregivers from different ethnic or racial groups: a randomized, controlled trial.  Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(10):727-738. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-145-10-200611210-00005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
36.
Ruiz  S, Snyder  LP, Rotondo  C, Cross-Barnet  C, Colligan  EM, Giuriceo  K.  Innovative home visit models associated with reductions in costs, hospitalizations, and emergency department use.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(3):425-432. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1305PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
37.
Gleckman  H. Today’s massive budget deal makes big Medicare changes. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2018/02/09/todays-massive-budget-deal-makes-big-medicare-changes/#7e9880d237bf. Published February 9, 2018. Accessed March 4, 2018.
38.
Bayliss  EA, McQuillan  DB, Ellis  JL,  et al.  Using Electronic Health Record Data to Measure Care Quality for Individuals with Multiple Chronic Medical Conditions.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64(9):1839-1844. doi:10.1111/jgs.14248PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    1 Comment for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    HEROIC COMMITMENT
    Paul Nelson, M.D., M.S. | Family Health Care, P.C. retired
    The research team screened 1229 persons to select 300 participants to complete a 5 month home intervention or a home minimalist home visit control arm with a respective 12 month f/u analysis. Then, with submission of the report, there was presumably another 1 year of careful editing. The cost per intervention person was $2825 that included up to $1300 for home repairs.

    I wonder whether each person in the study had an assessment of their extended family and next-door neighbor networks at the beginning of enrollment. Secondly, I  wonder whether or not the number
    of hospital days required during the year before enrollment and two years after enrollment were impacted by the study. This information, if available, would generate a much wider impact from the study on healthcare reform. Given the socioeconomic status of these study participants, I dearly hope so.

    During a 40 year career as a primary physician in nearly one location, a home visit was never a wasted effort to more fully understand the complexities of a person's health. I am sure the study team would heartedly agree.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Original Investigation
    January 7, 2019

    Effect of a Biobehavioral Environmental Approach on Disability Among Low-Income Older Adults: A Randomized Clinical Trial

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, Baltimore, Maryland
    • 2Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
    • 3Division of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland
    • 4Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore
    • 5Department of Health, Behavior and Society, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
    • 6Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland
    • 7College of Nursing and Health Professions, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(2):204-211. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6026
    Key Points

    Question  Does a program addressing personal and environmental factors reduce disability among low-income older adults?

    Findings  In this randomized clinical trial of 300 low-income older adults with disability, participation in a person-directed program resulted in a 30% reduction in disability scores compared with the results achieved in an attention control group.

    Meaning  The findings suggest that disability may be modifiable through addressing both the person and the environment and such an intervention merits consideration for broader implementation.

    Abstract

    Importance  Disability among older adults is a strong predictor of health outcomes, health service use, and health care costs. Few interventions have reduced disability among older adults.

    Objective  To determine whether a 10-session, home-based, multidisciplinary program reduces disability.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  In this randomized clinical trial of 300 low-income community-dwelling adults with a disability in Baltimore, Maryland, between March 18, 2012, and April 29, 2016, 65 years or older, cognitively intact, and with self-reported difficulty with 1 or more activities of daily living (ADLs) or 2 or more instrumental ADLs (IADLs), participants were interviewed in their home at baseline, 5 months (end point), and 12 months (follow-up) by trained research assistants who were masked to the group allocation. Participants were randomized to either the intervention (CAPABLE) group (n = 152) or the attention control group (n = 148) through a computer-based assignment scheme, stratified by sex in randomized blocks. Intention-to-treat analysis was used to assess the intervention. Data were analyzed from September 2017 through August 2018.

    Interventions  The CAPABLE group received up to 10 home visits over 5 months by occupational therapists, registered nurses, and home modifiers to address self-identified functional goals by enhancing individual capacity and the home environment. The control group received 10 social home visits by a research assistant.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  Disability with ADLs or IADLs at 5 months. Each ADL and IADL task was self-scored from 0 to 2 according to whether in the previous month the person did not have difficulty and did not need help (0), did not need help but had difficulty (1), or needed help regardless of difficulty (2). The overall score ranged from 0 to 16 points.

    Results  Of the 300 people randomized to either the CAPABLE group (n = 152) or the control group (n = 148), 133 of the CAPABLE participants (87.5%) were women with a mean (SD) age of 75.7 (7.6) years; 126 (82.9%) self-identified as black. Of the controls, 129 (87.2%) were women with a mean (SD) age of 75.4 (7.4) years; 133 (89.9%) self-identified as black. CAPABLE participation resulted in 30% reduction in ADL disability scores at 5 months (relative risk [RR], 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.93; P = .01) vs control participation. CAPABLE participation resulted in a statistically nonsignificant 17% reduction in IADL disability scores (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65-1.06; P = .13) vs control participation. Participants in the CAPABLE group vs those in the control group were more likely to report that the program made their life easier (82.3% vs 43.1%; P < .001), helped them take care of themselves (79.8% vs 35.5%; P < .001), and helped them gain confidence in managing daily challenges (79.9% vs 37.7%; P < .001).

    Conclusions and Relevance  Low-income community-dwelling older adults who received the CAPABLE intervention experienced substantial decrease in disability; disability may be modifiable through addressing both the person and the environment.

    Trial Registration  ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01576133

    Introduction

    Nearly 1 in 3 older Americans receives help with 1 or more basic daily activities, and as many as half of these individuals report difficulty.1 Disability is associated with poor quality of life, depression, hospitalization, nursing home placement, and further disability progression,2 with few exceptions.3 Despite all of this, geriatric clinic and transitional care models have not addressed or succeeded in reducing the difficulty or dependence when performing daily activities.

    Disability is an especially pressing issue for low-income older adults because they have a higher prevalence of disability4,5 and often have housing conditions that exacerbate the effect of disability (such as broken flooring).6,7 Contemporary payment and delivery reform initiatives create opportunities to address social determinants, such as housing conditions, to improve health while saving costs.8 Drawing on evidence that person-directed strategies that target individual priorities are especially effective,3,9 we tested a person-directed, tailored intervention to improve daily function and to meet the needs of low-income older adults.10 This intervention, called Community Aging in Place—Advancing Better Living for Elders (CAPABLE), recognizes individual contextual factors, such as preferences, and home environmental factors related to health, family, and housing circumstances.

    The CAPABLE program addresses personal and environmental factors that contribute to disability. It extends a successful program called Advancing Better Living for Elders (ABLE), which is designed to help older adults engage in everyday activities of their choice by reducing their difficulty with physical function, improving their quality of life, and lowering their mortality risk through a person-directed approach consisting of occupational therapy, physical therapy, and home environmental modifications.9,11 CAPABLE extends ABLE by including management of pain, medications, and depressive symptoms; communication with primary care practitioners; and home repair. Through pilot work, we identified these areas as crucial to amplifying the disability outcomes.12

    CAPABLE has been studied in a randomized pilot study13 and in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Innovation Center demonstration program.14 Both studies found CAPABLE to have a strong effect on reducing disability, but the pilot was underpowered with only 40 participants, whereas the CMS Innovation Center study was limited by a 1-arm study design with a matched comparison group. In this CAPABLE randomized clinical trial, we addressed both limitations. We hypothesized that participants randomized to the CAPABLE program would experience a reduction in disability 5 months after baseline compared with participants randomized to the attention control group.

    Methods

    This single-blind, 2-arm CAPABLE randomized clinical trial was conducted in Baltimore, Maryland, between March 18, 2012, and April 29, 2016. The trial protocol was approved by the Johns Hopkins University Institutional Review Board. Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants. The trial was monitored by a data and safety monitoring board. Details of the methods have been published elsewhere,12 and the full protocol is included in Supplement 1. All study participants were interviewed in their home at baseline, 5 months (main study end point), and 12-month follow-up by trained research assistants who were masked to the group allocation.

    Study Population

    The sample was recruited using a variety of strategies, including direct mail marketing (35%), self-referral (30%), sign-ups through government programs (19%), word of mouth (15%), and enrollment through community programs (7%). The screening process for these community-dwelling participants has been described elsewhere12 and is depicted in Figure 1.

    Eligible participants were 65 years of age or older; were cognitively intact, according to a Mini-Mental State examination15 score (from 0-30, with scores of 24-30 indicating no cognitive impairment) of at least 24 of 30 at the time of the in-person baseline visit; and reported difficulty with at least 1 activity of daily living (ADL)16 or at least 2 instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs).17 Eligible individuals also had to document income of less than 200% of the federal poverty level (in 2018, this amount is $22 980 annually for a 1-person household in the 48 contiguous US states).18

    Exclusion criteria included self-report of active cancer treatment, more than 3 acute hospitalizations in the past year, inability to stand, apartment dwelling, plans to move within a year, or use of home-based physical or occupational therapy services at enrollment.12

    Participants were randomized to either the intervention (CAPABLE) group or the attention control group through a computer-based assignment scheme, which was stratified by sex in randomized blocks. Investigators and study staff were masked to assignment scheme.

    Intervention Group

    The CAPABLE program has been described in detail elsewhere.12 Briefly, the program includes (1) a multidisciplinary assessment performed by an occupational therapist (OT), who evaluates the functional disability and home safety risks as well as asks participants about their functional goals, and by a registered nurse (RN), who inquires about participant goals regarding pain level, depression, medication understanding, primary care practitioner communication, and strength and balance; (2) development of an integrated plan that is based on individual assessments and participant goals and that includes tailored strategies that address those goals; (3) implementation of strategies that came from brainstorming with the participant; and (4) home repair, environmental modifications, and medical equipment that support the achievement of participant-identified functional goals.

    The program targets individual functional goals (eg, walk downstairs, take a shower, and get dressed without pain) identified by each participant and barriers to achieving these goals. For instance, if a participant wants to prepare food rather than wait for a neighbor to help, then the OT and participant together identify feasible energy-conserving approaches and tools.3 To complement these strategies, the RN uses behavioral activation strategies to help the participant manage depressive symptoms19 and balance issues.20 In consultation with the team, the home modifier stabilizes stairs, levels flooring, and repairs floors to enable participants to practice newly learned mobility skills safely and efficiently.

    For 5 months, CAPABLE participants receive up to 6 one-hour home sessions with the OT; up to 4 one-hour home sessions with the RN; and up to $1300 worth of home repairs, modifications, and assistive devices. The cost of delivering CAPABLE services in this trial was $2825 per person, which included visits, supplies, team coordination, mileage, and home improvement parts and labor.14

    The OTs and RNs were trained in the CAPABLE approach through readings, didactic sessions, shadowing experienced OTs and RNs to observe the protocol in the field, and bimonthly supervision meetings. The OTs and RNs documented the duration and content of each home session within 24 hours of completion. All study visits were audiotaped to ensure fidelity; study staff listened to a random 10% of the recordings and evaluated the tapes on the basis of a priori criteria.

    Attention Control Group

    The attention control group was designed to match the amount of social engagement that the intervention group received (10 home visits of 60 minutes each). The group research assistant helped participants identify sedentary activities they would like to learn or enjoy. Common choices were reminiscing about life, learning to use the internet, playing board games, and listening to music. The duration of each session was monitored.

    Measures and Outcomes

    Race/ethnicity, age, and sex information was self-reported by each participant. The primary outcomes were disability as measured by difficulty or dependence in self-reported ADLs and IADLs at 5 months (after program completion).

    Activities of daily living refer to self-reported difficulty or need for help when performing 8 essential ADLs: walking across a small room, bathing, upper-body dressing, lower-body dressing, eating, using the toilet, transferring in and out of bed, and grooming.16 This method of self-report, which has high test-retest reliability and sensitivity, predicts future morbidity.21 Functioning on each task was classified from 0 to 2, depending on whether in the previous month the person did not have difficulty and did not need help (0), did not need help but had difficulty (1), or needed help regardless of difficulty (2). A summary disability score for the 8 items ranged from 0 to 16 points; a 1-point change was considered clinically meaningful.22

    Instrumental activities of daily living refer to self-reported difficulty or need for help when performing 8 tasks: using the phone, shopping, preparing food, light housekeeping, washing laundry, traveling independently, taking medications, and managing finances independently. The response category for each IADL task ranged from 0 to 2, depending on whether in the previous month the person did not have difficulty and did not need help (0), did not need help but had difficulty (1), or needed help regardless of difficulty (2). The score ranged from 0 to 16 points.

    Perceived Program Benefits

    We evaluated participant assessment of study benefits using a survey adapted from previous trials23 that addressed the following 10 questions: (1) How much benefit did you perceive from the CAPABLE program? (2-9) How much did the program help you … take care of yourself? keep living at home? make life easier? make home safer? gain confidence in managing daily challenges? be less upset, distressed, or overwhelmed? take care of others? help others in similar situations? (10) Did the study require too much work or effort? Each of these questions could be answered by 1 of 3 responses: not at all, some, or a great deal.

    Statistical Analysis

    On the basis of the pilot study,13 we assumed 15% attrition by 5 months and 90% power to detect a moderate effect size. We set the significance level at α = .05. Given these numbers, we planned to randomize 300 participants to the CAPABLE group or control group. The sample size calculation was based on 2-sided, 2-sample t tests at a P = .05 significance level and detected an effect size of 0.36 or greater with 80% power. The effect size was based on standardized mean difference in the ADL (or IADL) score at 5 months between the intervention and attention control groups.

    We compared the baseline characteristics of study participants to assess the balance between the CAPABLE and control groups. Both crude and covariate-adjusted effect sizes were presented to evaluate the robustness of findings. We used intention-to-treat analysis to assess the intervention effects. We were unable to use analysis of covariance to test the differences in primary outcomes between the groups because so many participants scored a 0 on their disability assessment after the intervention. This result led to overdispersion, shown in a significant likelihood ratio test.24 Therefore, we used the negative binomial regression model, a generalized linear model that accounts for nonnegative integer-valued outcome variables.25

    To implement the intention-to-treat analysis, we modeled the ADL and IADL scores as a longitudinal outcome consisting of up to 3 measurements taken at baseline, 5 months, and 12 months, using the random-effect overdispersion negative binomial regression model.26 In this model, the random effect refers to the distribution of the dispersion parameter on the assumption that the dispersion is constant within a person but varies from person to person, such that the inverse of 1 plus the dispersion follows a beta distribution. We included in the model a binary indicator for treatment allocation, dummy indicators of study visits (ie, baseline, 5 months, and 12 months), and interaction terms between the treatment indicator and visit time to allow varying effect size during the intervention phase compared with the maintenance phase. The effect-size estimates were presented, separately at 5 months and 12 months, as the ratio of means between the CAPABLE and the control groups after adjusting for race/ethnicity, sex, and prognostic factors such as pain distress, tiredness, and unintentional weight loss in the past year at baseline. These prognostic factors were determined by forward stepwise selection, with 0.1 significant level for variable entry into and with 0.15 significant level for removal from negative binomial models of posttreatment ADL and IADL scores, weighted by factors associated with the likelihood to drop out. Attrition at the primary end point (5 months) was low at 12.3%. With the maximum likelihood estimator, the random-effect model was robust to data missing at randomization, conditional on the covariates in the model. All analyses were conducted using STATA, version 15 (StataCorp LLC).

    Results

    We screened 1229 people for participation. Of these individuals, 300 were eligible, interested in participating, and then randomized to either the intervention group (n = 152) or the control group (n = 148) (Figure 1). Of the 152 participants in the intervention group, 133 (87.5%) were women and 19 (12.5%) were men, with a mean (SD) age of 75.7 (7.6) years, and 126 (82.9%) self-identified as black. Of the 148 participants in the control group, 129 (87.2%) were women and 19 (12.8%) were men, with a mean (SD) age of 75.4 (7.4) years, and 133 (89.9%) self-identified as black.

    The study attrition rate was low, with 37 participants (12.3%) not completing the assessment at 5 months and 40 participants (13.3%) not completing the follow-up at 12 months. A total of 130 participants (85.5%) in the intervention group and 133 participants (89.9%) in the control group completed the study at 5 months, and 130 participants (85.5%) in the intervention group and 130 participants (87.8%) in the control group completed the study at 12 months. Those who did not get reassessed were older and had higher ADL disability scores. No demographic or functional differences were observed between the treatment and control groups at baseline (Table 1) except for pain distress in the previous week, tiredness, and unintentional weight loss, each of which was statistically significantly worse in the treatment group than in the control group.

    Treatment Dose

    Of the 152 participants in the intervention arm, 141 (92.8%) completed 8 to 10 sessions and only 6 (3.9%) had fewer than 3 sessions, considered the minimal treatment threshold. Participants in the intervention group received a mean (SD) of 9.1 (1.86) home visits. Of the 148 control group participants, 73 (49.3%) completed 8 to 10 visits, and 56 people (37.8) had fewer than 3 sessions.

    Primary Outcome: Disability at 5 Months

    In unadjusted analyses, participants in the intervention group reported a 26% reduction (relative risk [RR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.57-0.97; P = .03) in ADL disability scores compared with participants in the control group. The 10% reduction in IADL disability scores among those in the intervention group, compared with the controls, was not statistically significant (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.72-1.12; P = .35). In adjusted analyses, the CAPABLE treatment effect on ADL disability scores remained statistically significant (30% reduction; RR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.54-0.93; P = .01) and the effect on IADL scores was still not statistically significant (17% reduction; RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.65-1.06; P = .13) (Table 2). These adjustments were made in sex; race/ethnicity; corresponding pre-intervention ADL (or IADL) score; and baseline treatment group differences in pain distress, tiredness, and unintentional weight loss; as well as after applying weights (to adjust for the likelihood of a reassessment dropout).

    Secondary Outcome: Disability at 12 Months

    Unadjusted analyses showed that participants in the intervention group reported a statistically nonsignificant 7% improvement in ADL disability scores (RR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.72-1.21; P = .60) from baseline to 12-month measurement (7 months after the conclusion of CAPABLE visits), compared with the control participants. The RR of improvement in IADL disability scores at 12 months was also not statistically significant (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.85-1.32; P = .61). In adjusted analyses, the effect on ADL (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.68- 1.18; P = .44) and IADL (RR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.81-1.31; P = .80) scores remained statistically nonsignificant (Table 2). The adjustments were the same as those for the assessment at 5 months, with adjustments made in sex; race/ethnicity; corresponding pre-intervention (ADL or IADL) score; baseline intervention group differences in pain distress, tiredness, and unintentional weight loss; and after applying weights (to adjust for the likelihood of a 12-month reassessment dropout).

    Perception of Benefit

    The intervention group participants (n=119), compared with controls (n=123), responded with a great deal to the following survey items: overall benefit (91.6% [109] vs 63.4% [78]; P < .001); the CAPABLE program made their life easier (82.3% [98] vs 43.1% [53]; P < .001), made their home safer (82.3% [98] vs 28.5% [35]; P < .001), kept them living at home (79.8% [95] vs 43.4% [53]; P < .001), helped them gain confidence in managing daily challenges (78.9% [94] vs 37.7% [46]; P < .001), helped them take care of themselves (79.8% [95] vs 35.5% [43]; P < .001), lessened their upset, distress, or overwhelmed feeling (65.5% [78] vs 37.2% [45]; P < .001), would help others in a similar situation (89.1% [106] vs 57.72% [71]; P < .001), and whether participants said the program helped them take care of others (45.4% [54] vs 30.3% [37]; P = .02). No statistical differences were found between the control and intervention groups in whether participants said the program required too much work or effort (5.0% [6] vs 1.6% [2]; P = .14) (Figure 2).

    Discussion

    In this randomized clinical trial, participants randomized to the CAPABLE (intervention) group reported a substantial reduction in disability scores after treatment (5-month outcome) compared with the attention control group. The 30% magnitude of the reduction is comparable to results of the 1-armed study of CAPABLE funded by the CMS Innovation Center, which used multiple matched Medicare beneficiaries for comparison. Participants in the control group who received individualized attention also improved, reporting smaller magnitude reductions in ADL and IADL disability scores.

    Disabilities are common among adults aged 65 years or older and are associated with poor quality of life,27,28 further functional decline,2 hospitalization,29 increased mortality, and triple the medical costs.30 We tested the CAPABLE program, a person-directed intervention that helps older adults identify and achieve their own functional goals through a combination of strategies, including targeting the individual and the home environment. Our findings extend the body of literature on person-directed care,31 goal-directed care,32,33 and the power of both person and environment interventions34 to decrease disability scores by more than 4 times the SE of the primary outcomes. Other studies have used 0.5-SD reduction as a clinically meaningful cutoff in main outcomes.23,35

    Reducing disability scores among low-income older adults has clinical, fiscal, and policy relevance. In a nonrandomized evaluation of the CMS Innovation Center demonstration of CAPABLE, CMS evaluators estimated cost savings to Medicare of $22 000 over 2 years for the average CAPABLE participant (at a total cost per participant of $2825), compared with a propensity score–matched comparison group.36 The CAPABLE program has subsequently been adopted by health care organizations in 22 cities and rural areas in 11 states, through varied innovations in payment policy such as Medicaid waivers (which provide community-based resources for people deemed eligible for a nursing home); accountable care organizations; and hospital readmission prevention programs. This well-powered, randomized trial provides further support that the CAPABLE intervention reduces disability scores in a high-risk subset of the older adult population. As such, the program merits consideration of inclusion in payment innovations, such as those from CMS that allow Medicare Advantage to pay for nonmedical costs with the medical budget37 or through a Special Needs Plan geared toward people with disabilities who are dually eligible for Medicaid and Medicare.

    Despite its predictive value and strong relevance to value-based care and population health efforts, functional status is not commonly prioritized in primary and specialty care. Functional status is often a hidden feature in electronic medical records, if the feature exists at all,38 the reason for which may be the widely held belief that functional decline is not modifiable. Our work suggests that function can be improved.

    The effect of the CAPABLE intervention diminished between 5 and 12 months, which may suggest that a booster visit or call could be useful. In addition, a screening for possible benefits like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or involvement by a social worker, community health worker, or physical therapist could augment the effect. Some of the new CAPABLE sites are experimenting with these extensions.

    Limitations

    This trial has a few limitations. Participants who responded to recruitment may be different in unmeasured ways from individuals who did not respond. Older adults who are referred to as high-cost utilizers are often harder to engage and may not have the same uptake or same results. In addition, this study was limited to low-income older adults in Baltimore, Maryland, and the sample was predominantly black women, which may limit generalizability. However, few studies of geriatric models have been conducted among low-income older adults and with a predominantly black sample.

    Conclusions

    Meeting the near-universal goal of supporting older adults to age in place will require models that address more than medical conditions. Findings from this trial suggest that disability may be modifiable through addressing both the person and the environment.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: September 8, 2016.

    Corresponding Author: Sarah L. Szanton, PhD, Johns Hopkins University School of Nursing, 525 N Wolfe Street, Baltimore MD, 21205 (sszanto1@jhu.edu).

    Published Online: January 7, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6026

    Author Contributions: Drs Szanton and Xue had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Szanton, Leff, Guralnik, Tanner, Boyd, Bishai, Gitlin.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Szanton, Xue, Leff, Guralnik, Wolff, Boyd, Thorpe, Gitlin.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Szanton, Xue, Tanner, Gitlin.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Szanton, Leff, Guralnik, Wolff, Tanner, Boyd, Thorpe, Bishai, Gitlin.

    Statistical analysis: Xue, Guralnik.

    Obtained funding: Szanton, Gitlin.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Szanton, Guralnik, Wolff, Tanner.

    Supervision: Szanton, Tanner, Bishai, Gitlin.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Drs Szanton and Gitlin reported being inventors of the CAPABLE training program, for which the Johns Hopkins University is entitled to fees. This arrangement has been reviewed and approved by the Johns Hopkins University in accordance with its conflict of interest policies.

    Funding/Support: This study was supported by grant R01AG040100 from the National Institutes of Health.

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding source had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    Additional Contributions: We thank all of the study coinvestigators, staff, and participants for their generous help.

    Disclaimer: The content is solely the responsibility of the authors.

    Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.

    References
    1.
    Freedman  VA, Spillman  BC.  The residential continuum from home to nursing home: size, characteristics and unmet needs of older adults.  J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2014;69(suppl 1):S42-S50. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbu120PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    Arnau  A, Espaulella  J, Serrarols  M, Canudas  J, Formiga  F, Ferrer  M.  Risk factors for functional decline in a population aged 75 years and older without total dependence: A one-year follow-up.  Arch Gerontol Geriatr. 2016;65:239-247. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2016.04.002PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Gitlin  LN, Hauck  WW, Winter  L, Dennis  MP, Schulz  R.  Effect of an in-home occupational and physical therapy intervention on reducing mortality in functionally vulnerable older people: preliminary findings.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(6):950-955. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00733.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Fuller-Thomson  E, Nuru-Jeter  A, Minkler  M, Guralnik  JM.  Black-White disparities in disability among older Americans: further untangling the role of race and socioeconomic status.  J Aging Health. 2009;21(5):677-698. doi:10.1177/0898264309338296PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Minkler  M, Fuller-Thomson  E, Guralnik  JM.  Gradient of disability across the socioeconomic spectrum in the United States.  N Engl J Med. 2006;355(7):695-703. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa044316PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Cho  J, Cook  C, Bruin  MJ.  Functional ability, neighborhood resources and housing satisfaction among older adults in the U.S.  J Hous Elder. 2012;26(4):395-412. doi:10.1080/02763893.2012.724376Google ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Cho  HY, MacLachlan  M, Clarke  M, Mannan  H.  Accessible Home Environments for People with Functional Limitations: A Systematic Review.  Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2016;13(8):826. doi:10.3390/ijerph13080826PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Alley  DE, Asomugha  CN, Conway  PH, Sanghavi  DM.  Accountable Health Communities–Addressing Social Needs through Medicare and Medicaid.  N Engl J Med. 2016;374(1):8-11. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1512532PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Gitlin  LN, Hauck  WW, Dennis  MP, Winter  L, Hodgson  N, Schinfeld  S.  Long-term effect on mortality of a home intervention that reduces functional difficulties in older adults: results from a randomized trial.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2009;57(3):476-481. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2008.02147.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    10.
    Starfield  B.  Is patient-centered care the same as person-focused care?  Perm J. 2011;15(2):63-69. doi:10.7812/TPP/10-148PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Gitlin  LN, Winter  L, Dennis  MP, Corcoran  M, Schinfeld  S, Hauck  WW.  A randomized trial of a multicomponent home intervention to reduce functional difficulties in older adults.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2006;54(5):809-816. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2006.00703.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Szanton  SL, Wolff  JW, Leff  B,  et al.  CAPABLE trial: a randomized controlled trial of nurse, occupational therapist and handyman to reduce disability among older adults: rationale and design.  Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;38(1):102-112. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2014.03.005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Szanton  SL, Thorpe  RJ, Boyd  C,  et al.  Community aging in place, advancing better living for elders: a bio-behavioral-environmental intervention to improve function and health-related quality of life in disabled older adults.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(12):2314-2320. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03698.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Szanton  SL, Leff  B, Wolff  JL, Roberts  L, Gitlin  LN.  Home-Based Care Program Reduces Disability And Promotes Aging In Place.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2016;35(9):1558-1563. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.0140PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Folstein  MF, Folstein  SE, McHugh  PR.  “Mini-mental state”. A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician.  J Psychiatr Res. 1975;12(3):189-198.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    16.
    Katz  S, Ford  AB, Moskowitz  RW, Jackson  BA, Jaffe  MW.  Studies of illness in the aged. the index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function.  JAMA. 1963;185:914-919. doi:10.1001/jama.1963.03060120024016PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Lawton  MP, Brody  EM.  Assessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living.  Gerontologist. 1969;9(3):179-186. doi:10.1093/geront/9.3_Part_1.179PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    HealthCare.Gov. Federal poverty level. Healthcare.gov. https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FPL/. Accessed March 15, 2012.
    19.
    Gitlin  LN, Harris  LF, McCoy  M, Chernett  NL, Jutkowitz  E, Pizzi  LT; Beat the Blues Team.  A community-integrated home based depression intervention for older African Americans: [corrected] description of the Beat the Blues randomized trial and intervention costs.  BMC Geriatr. 2012;12:4. doi:10.1186/1471-2318-12-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    20.
    Frick  KD, Kung  JY, Parrish  JM, Narrett  MJ.  Evaluating the cost-effectiveness of fall prevention programs that reduce fall-related hip fractures in older adults.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(1):136-141. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2009.02575.xPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Wallace  M, Shelkey  M.  Monitoring functional status in hospitalized older adults.  Am J Nurs. 2008;108(4):64-71. doi:10.1097/01.NAJ.0000315266.66521.e7PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Gill  TM, Baker  DI, Gottschalk  M, Peduzzi  PN, Allore  H, Byers  A.  A program to prevent functional decline in physically frail, elderly persons who live at home.  N Engl J Med. 2002;347(14):1068-1074. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa020423PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    23.
    Gitlin  LN, Winter  L, Dennis  MP, Hodgson  N, Hauck  WW.  A biobehavioral home-based intervention and the well-being of patients with dementia and their caregivers: the COPE randomized trial.  JAMA. 2010;304(9):983-991.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    24.
    Gutierrez  RG, Carter  S, Drukker  DM.  On boundary-value likelihood-ratio tests.  Stata Tech Bull. 2001;10(60):15-20.Google Scholar
    25.
    McCullagh  P, Nelder  J.  Generalized Linear Models. 2nd ed. London, UK: Chapman and Hall; 1994.
    26.
    Hausman  JA, Hall  BH, Griliches  Z.  Econometric models for count data with an application to the patents-R&D relationship.  Econometrica. 1984;52(4):909-938. doi:10.2307/1911191Google ScholarCrossref
    27.
    Bentley  JP, Brown  CJ, McGwin  G  Jr, Sawyer  P, Allman  RM, Roth  DL.  Functional status, life-space mobility, and quality of life: a longitudinal mediation analysis.  Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1621-1632. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0315-3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Barile  JP, Thompson  WW, Zack  MM, Krahn  GL, Horner-Johnson  W, Haffer  SC.  Activities of daily living, chronic medical conditions, and health-related quality of life in older adults.  J Ambul Care Manage. 2012;35(4):292-303. doi:10.1097/JAC.0b013e31826746f5PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    29.
    Perrin  NA, Stiefel  M, Mosen  DM, Bauck  A, Shuster  E, Dirks  EM.  Self-reported health and functional status information improves prediction of inpatient admissions and costs.  Am J Manag Care. 2011;17(12):e472-e478.PubMedGoogle Scholar
    30.
    Alecxih  L, Shen  S, Chan  I. Individuals living in the community with chronic conditions and functional limitations: a closer look. Office of The Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. http://aspe.hhs.gov/daltcp/reports/2010/closerlook.pdf . Published January 1, 2010. Accessed September 10, 2017.
    31.
    Lines  LM, Lepore  M, Wiener  JM.  Patient-centered, Person-centered, and Person-directed Care: They are Not the Same.  Med Care. 2015;53(7):561-563. doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000387PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Bodenheimer  T, Lorig  K, Holman  H, Grumbach  K.  Patient self-management of chronic disease in primary care.  JAMA. 2002;288(19):2469-2475. doi:10.1001/jama.288.19.2469PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Reuben  DB, Tinetti  ME.  Goal-oriented patient care–an alternative health outcomes paradigm.  N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):777-779. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1113631PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Wahl  HW, Fänge  A, Oswald  F, Gitlin  LN, Iwarsson  S.  The home environment and disability-related outcomes in aging individuals: what is the empirical evidence?  Gerontologist. 2009;49(3):355-367. doi:10.1093/geront/gnp056PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    35.
    Belle  SH, Burgio  L, Burns  R,  et al; Resources for Enhancing Alzheimer’s Caregiver Health (REACH) II Investigators.  Enhancing the quality of life of dementia caregivers from different ethnic or racial groups: a randomized, controlled trial.  Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(10):727-738. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-145-10-200611210-00005PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    36.
    Ruiz  S, Snyder  LP, Rotondo  C, Cross-Barnet  C, Colligan  EM, Giuriceo  K.  Innovative home visit models associated with reductions in costs, hospitalizations, and emergency department use.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(3):425-432. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1305PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Gleckman  H. Today’s massive budget deal makes big Medicare changes. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/howardgleckman/2018/02/09/todays-massive-budget-deal-makes-big-medicare-changes/#7e9880d237bf. Published February 9, 2018. Accessed March 4, 2018.
    38.
    Bayliss  EA, McQuillan  DB, Ellis  JL,  et al.  Using Electronic Health Record Data to Measure Care Quality for Individuals with Multiple Chronic Medical Conditions.  J Am Geriatr Soc. 2016;64(9):1839-1844. doi:10.1111/jgs.14248PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×