Effect of a Telecare Case Management Program for Older Adults Who Are Homebound During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial | Geriatrics | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Visual Abstract. Effect of a telecare case management program for older adults who are homebound during the COVID-19 pandemic
Effect of a telecare case management program for older adults who are homebound during the COVID-19 pandemic
Figure.  CONSORT Diagram
CONSORT Diagram

ITT indicates intention-to-treat.

Table 1.  Demographic Characteristics of Participants
Demographic Characteristics of Participants
Table 2.  Baseline and Postintervention Outcomes in Both Groups
Baseline and Postintervention Outcomes in Both Groups
Table 3.  Intervention Effects
Intervention Effects
1.
Xiang  X, Chen  J, Kim  M.  Trajectories of homebound status in Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older.   Gerontologist. 2020;60(1):101-111. doi:10.1093/geront/gnz023 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Sterling-Fox  C.  Access to five nonprimary health care services by homebound older adults: an integrative review.   Home Health Care Manag Pract. 2019;31(1):55-69. doi:10.1177/1084822318810384Google ScholarCrossref
3.
Zhao  YL, Alderden  J, Lind  B, Stibrany  J.  Risk factors for falls in homebound community-dwelling older adults.   Public Health Nurs. 2019;36(6):772-778. doi:10.1111/phn.12651PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Xiang  X, Brooks  J.  Correlates of depressive symptoms among homebound and semi-homebound older adults.   J Gerontol Soc Work. 2017;60(3):201-214. doi:10.1080/01634372.2017.1286625 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Qiu  WQ, Dean  M, Liu  T,  et al.  Physical and mental health of homebound older adults: an overlooked population.   J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(12):2423-2428. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03161.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Kim  CO, Jang  SN.  Home-based primary care for homebound older adults: literature review.   Ann Geriatr Med Res. 2018;22(2):62-72. doi:10.4235/agmr.2018.22.2.62 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Norman  GJ, Wade  AJ, Morris  AM, Slaboda  JC.  Home and community-based services coordination for homebound older adults in home-based primary care.   BMC Geriatr. 2018;18(1):241. doi:10.1186/s12877-018-0931-z PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Stall  N, Nowaczynski  M, Sinha  SK.  Systematic review of outcomes from home-based primary care programs for homebound older adults.   J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62(12):2243-2251. doi:10.1111/jgs.13088 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Ninnis  K, van den Berg  M, Lannin  NA,  et al.  Information and communication technology use within occupational therapy home assessments: a scoping review.   Br J Occup Ther. 2019;82(3):141-152. doi:10.1177/0308022618786928Google ScholarCrossref
10.
Read  J, Jones  N, Fegan  C,  et al.  Remote home visit: exploring the feasibility, acceptability and potential benefits of using digital technology to undertake occupational therapy home assessments.   Br J Occup Ther. 2020;83(10):648-658. doi:10.1177/0308022620921111Google ScholarCrossref
11.
Hawley  CE, Genovese  N, Owsiany  MT,  et al.  Rapid integration of home telehealth visits amidst COVID-19: what do older adults need to succeed?   J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020;68(11):2431-2439. doi:10.1111/jgs.16845 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
12.
Kim  EH, Gellis  ZD, Bradway  CK, Kenaley  B.  Depression care services and telehealth technology use for homebound elderly in the United States.   Aging Ment Health. 2019;23(9):1164-1173. doi:10.1080/13607863.2018.1481925 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
13.
Gellis  ZD, Kenaley  B, McGinty  J, Bardelli  E, Davitt  J, Ten Have  T.  Outcomes of a telehealth intervention for homebound older adults with heart or chronic respiratory failure: a randomized controlled trial.   Gerontologist. 2012;52(4):541-552. doi:10.1093/geront/gnr134 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Abrashkin  KA, Zhang  J, Poku  A.  Acute, post-acute, and primary care utilization in a home-based primary care program during COVID-19.   Gerontologist. 2021;61(1):78-85. doi:10.1093/geront/gnaa158 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Tomioka  K, Kurumatani  N, Hosoi  H.  Social participation and cognitive decline among community-dwelling older adults: a community-based longitudinal study.   J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2018;73(5):799-806. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbw059PubMedGoogle Scholar
16.
Broderick  L, McCullagh  R, White  EB, Savage  E, Timmons  S.  Perceptions, expectations, and informal supports influence exercise activity in frail older adults.   SAGE Open. 2015;5(2):1-10. doi:10.1177/2158244015580850Google ScholarCrossref
17.
Wong  AKC, Wong  FKY, Chang  K.  Effectiveness of a community-based self-care promoting program for community-dwelling older adults: a randomized controlled trial.   Age Ageing. 2019;48(6):852-858. doi:10.1093/ageing/afz095 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Farley  H.  Promoting self-efficacy in patients with chronic disease beyond traditional education: a literature review.   Nurs Open. 2019;7(1):30-41. doi:10.1002/nop2.382 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Lau  SCL, Bhattacharjya  S, Fong  MWM,  et al.  Effectiveness of theory-based digital self-management interventions for improving depression, anxiety, fatigue and self-efficacy in people with neurological disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   J Telemed Telecare. Published online October 24, 2020. doi:10.1177/1357633X20955122PubMedGoogle Scholar
20.
Yamazaki  S, Fujita  K, Imuta  H.  Development of a scale measuring barriers to going out among community-dwelling older adults.   Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2021;21(2):238-244. doi:10.1111/ggi.14111 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
Yao  NA, Ritchie  C, Cornwell  T, Leff  B.  Use of home-based medical care and disparities.   J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018;66(9):1716-1720. doi:10.1111/jgs.15444 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
22.
Urbaniak  GC, Plous  S. Research Randomizer. Accessed July 19, 2021. https://www.randomizer.org/
23.
Martin  KS.  The Omaha System: A Key to Practice, Documentation, and Information Management. 2nd ed. Health Connections Press; 2005.
24.
Leung  DYP, Leung  AYM.  Factor structure and gender invariance of the Chinese General Self-efficacy Scale among soon-to-be-aged adults.   J Adv Nurs. 2011;67(6):1383-1392. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05529.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Leung  SOC, Chan  CCH, Shah  S.  Development of a Chinese version of the Modified Barthel Index—validity and reliability.   Clin Rehabil. 2007;21(10):912-922. doi:10.1177/0269215507077286 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Tong  AYC, Man  DWK.  The validation of the Hong Kong Chinese version of the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living scale for institutionalized elderly persons.   OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health. 2002;22(4):132-142. doi:10.1177/153944920202200402Google Scholar
27.
Jin  H, Kim  Y, Rhie  SJ.  Factors affecting medication adherence in elderly people.   Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:2117-2125. doi:10.2147/PPA.S118121 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Lam  CLK, Wong  CKH, Lam  ETP, Lo  YYC, Huang  WW.  Population norm of Chinese (HK) SF-12 Health Survey Version 2 of Chinese adults in Hong Kong.   Hong Kong Practitioner. 2010;32(2):77-86. Accessed July 28, 2021. http://hdl.handle.net/10722/157222Google Scholar
29.
Pocklington  C, Gilbody  S, Manea  L, McMillan  D.  The diagnostic accuracy of brief versions of the Geriatric Depression Scale: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016;31(8):837-857. doi:10.1002/gps.4407 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Laforest  S, Nour  K, Gignac  M, Gauvin  L, Parisien  M, Poirier  MC.  Short-term effects of a self-management intervention on health status of housebound older adults with arthritis.   J Appl Gerontol. 2008;27(5):539-567. doi:10.1177/0733464808319712Google ScholarCrossref
31.
Cocks  K, Torgerson  DJ.  Sample size calculations for pilot randomized trials: a confidence interval approach.   J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(2):197-201. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.002 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Whitehead  AL, Julious  SA, Cooper  CL, Campbell  MJ.  Estimating the sample size for a pilot randomised trial to minimise the overall trial sample size for the external pilot and main trial for a continuous outcome variable.   Stat Methods Med Res. 2016;25(3):1057-1073. doi:10.1177/0962280215588241 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
Musich  S, Wang  SS, Hawkins  K, Yeh  CS.  Homebound older adults: prevalence, characteristics, health care utilization and quality of care.   Geriatr Nurs. 2015;36(6):445-450. doi:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2015.06.013 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Almathami  HKY, Win  KT, Vlahu-Gjorgievska  E.  Barriers and facilitators that influence telemedicine-based, real-time, online consultation at patients’ homes: systematic literature review.   J Med internet Res. 2020;22(2):e16407. doi:10.2196/16407 PubMedGoogle Scholar
35.
Khechine  H, Lakhal  S, Pascot  D, Bytha  A.  UTAUT model for blended learning: the role of gender and age in the intention to use webinars.   Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Lifelong Learning. 2014;10(1):33-52. doi:10.28945/1994Google Scholar
36.
Moryson  H, Moeser  G.  Consumer adoption of cloud computing services in Germany: investigation of moderating effects by applying a UTAUT model.   International Journal of Marketing Studies. 2016;8(1):14-32. doi:10.5539/ijms.v8n1p14Google ScholarCrossref
37.
Greenhalgh  T, Shaw  S, Wherton  J,  et al.  Real-world implementation of video outpatient consultations at macro, meso, and micro levels: mixed-method study.   J Med internet Res. 2018;20(4):e150. doi:10.2196/jmir.9897 PubMedGoogle Scholar
38.
Choi  NG, Wilson  NL, Sirrianni  L, Marinucci  ML, Hegel  MT.  Acceptance of home-based telehealth problem-solving therapy for depressed, low-income homebound older adults: qualitative interviews with the participants and aging-service case managers.   Gerontologist. 2014;54(4):704-713. doi:10.1093/geront/gnt083PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Free  C, Phillips  G, Galli  L,  et al.  The effectiveness of mobile-health technology-based health behaviour change or disease management interventions for health care consumers: a systematic review.   PLoS Med. 2013;10(1):e1001362. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001362 PubMedGoogle Scholar
40.
Schooley  B, San Nicolas-Rocca  T, Burkhard  R.  Patient-provider communications in outpatient clinic settings: a clinic-based evaluation of mobile device and multimedia mediated communications for patient education.   JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015;3(1):e2. doi:10.2196/mhealth.3732 PubMedGoogle Scholar
41.
Spring  B, Pellegrini  C, McFadden  HG,  et al.  Multicomponent mHealth intervention for large, sustained change in multiple diet and activity risk behaviors: the Make Better Choices 2 randomized controlled trial.   J Med internet Res. 2018;20(6):e10528. doi:10.2196/10528 PubMedGoogle Scholar
42.
Direito  A, Carraça  E, Rawstorn  J, Whittaker  R, Maddison  R.  mHealth technologies to influence physical activity and sedentary behaviors: behavior change techniques, systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.   Ann Behav Med. 2017;51(2):226-239. doi:10.1007/s12160-016-9846-0 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
Volk  RJ, Lowenstein  LM, Leal  VB,  et al.  Effect of a patient decision aid on lung cancer screening decision-making by persons who smoke: a randomized clinical trial.   JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1):e1920362. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20362 PubMedGoogle Scholar
44.
Orgeta  V, Brede  J, Livingston  G.  Behavioural activation for depression in older people: systematic review and meta-analysis.   Br J Psychiatry. 2017;211(5):274-279. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.117.205021 PubMedGoogle 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
    Original Investigation
    Geriatrics
    September 9, 2021

    Effect of a Telecare Case Management Program for Older Adults Who Are Homebound During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Pilot Randomized Clinical Trial

    Author Affiliations
    • 1School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong
    • 2The Hong Kong Lutheran Social Service, Homantin, Hong Kong
    • 3Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom
    JAMA Netw Open. 2021;4(9):e2123453. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.23453
    Key Points

    Question  Can a telecare case management program delivered by a nurse case manager supported by a health-social team improve self-efficacy, health-related measures, and health care service utilization outcomes among older adults who are homebound?

    Findings  In this randomized clinical trial with 68 participants, there was no statistical difference in self-efficacy between the telecare group and control group at 3 months according to the Chinese version of the 10-item, 4-point General Self-efficacy Scale. Scores for self-efficacy improved in both groups over time.

    Meaning  While the intervention did not increase self-efficacy, the findings suggest that telecare case management may increase quality of life and rates of medication adherence among older adults who are homebound.

    Abstract

    Importance  Older adults who are homebound can be difficult to reach owing to their functional limitations and social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic, leaving their health needs unrecognized at an earlier stage.

    Objective  To determine the effectiveness of a telecare case management program for older adults who are homebound during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Design, Setting, and Participants  This randomized clinical trial was conducted among 68 older adults in Hong Kong from May 21 to July 20, 2020, with a last follow-up date of October 20, 2020. Inclusion criteria were being 60 years or older, owning a smartphone, and going outside less than once a week in the previous 6 months.

    Interventions  Participants in the telecare group received weekly case management from a nurse supported by a social service team via telephone call and weekly video messages covering self-care topics delivered via smartphone for 3 months. Participants in the control group received monthly social telephone calls.

    Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary outcome was the change in general self-efficacy from before the intervention to after the intervention at 3 months. Self-efficacy was measured by the Chinese version of the 10-item, 4-point General Self-efficacy Scale, with higher scores representing higher self-efficacy levels. Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.

    Results  A total of 68 participants who fulfilled the criteria were enrolled (34 in the control group and 34 in the intervention group; 56 [82.4%] were women; and mean [SD] age, 71.8 [6.1] years). At 3 months, there was no statistical difference in self-efficacy between the telecare group and the control group. Scores for self-efficacy improved in both groups (β = 1.68; 95% CI, −0.68 to 4.03; P = .16). No significant differences were found in basic and instrumental activities of daily living, depression, and use of health care services. However, the telecare group showed statistically significant interactions of group and time effects on medication adherence (β = −8.30; 95% CI, −13.14 to −3.47; P = .001) and quality of life (physical component score: β = 4.99; 95% CI, 0.29-9.69; P = .04).

    Conclusions and Relevance  In this randomized clinical trial, participants who received the telecare program were statistically no different from the control group with respect to changes in self-efficacy, although scores in both groups improved. After the intervention, the telecare group had better medication adherence and quality of life than the control group, although the small sample size may limit generalizability. A large-scale study is needed to confirm these results.

    Trial Registration  ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04304989

    Introduction

    The number of older adults who are homebound is growing substantially owing to a global aging population and advanced health care technology. A current report from the United States shows that approximately 3 million community-dwelling older adults are in a chronic homebound state,1 that is, confined to their home and normally unable to go outdoors more than once per week because of physical and functional impairments.2 Older adults who are homebound encounter a range of physical ailments, such as chronic pain and muscle weakness, which prevent them from leaving their homes.3,4 It is therefore unsurprising that older adults who are homebound have a higher prevalence of polypharmacy and greater health care service utilization than their counterparts who are not homebound.5

    Home-based primary care services are promoted among the older population to improve their access to health care and their ability to remain safely in their own homes without being institutionalized.6 Home-based primary care is a multidisciplinary support model involving services ranging from assistance with basic daily living to tertiary-level health care for those who have difficulty accessing office-based primary care.7 A systematic review has demonstrated that this model could improve quality of life (QOL) and satisfaction levels and reduce depression levels and disability among older adults who are homebound.8 However, despite the effectiveness of these home-based services, studies indicate that additional time and resources are required for health care professionals to travel to homes, diverting resources from hospital settings and possibly affecting quality of care in acute settings.9,10 Physical home visits also increase risks of infectious disease transmission, which is a particular concern during the current COVID-19 pandemic. Home-based health care services are limited during this pandemic period.11 An alternative home-based care delivery model is needed that can be sustained throughout and beyond the pandemic.

    Telecare refers to the use of electronic modalities, such as smartphones, to support long-distance, virtual, face-to-face encounters between health care professionals and their patients.12 Telecare particularly benefits older adults who are homebound and have limited access to customary health care services owing to physical disability13 and face a worsened situation during the pandemic. However, the utilization rate of these telehealth programs among older adults who are homebound was low, with reported challenges that included technical compatibility issues and the high cost of installation and maintenance of home health monitoring services.14

    Older adults who are homebound often rely on other people to undertake activities that require leaving home, such as accessing health care services.5 Compounded by a decrease in community engagement and functional limitations,15 these individuals have a greatly compromised sense of self-efficacy,16 which may hamper their ability to maintain healthy living at home.15 Self-efficacy is frequently regarded as an indicator of a person’s initiation of and motivation for engaging in self-care practice, and previous studies have reported that persons with higher self-efficacy have a better QOL and use fewer hospital services.17 The introduction of telecare delivery of some health care services can make bolstering the self-efficacy level of older adults who are homebound plausible. By using telecare, health care professionals can readily offer health information that is relevant to older adults’ individual needs and co-design their self-directed goals and action plan for goal attainment without requiring them to leave home. Previous telecare studies have shown promising results in improving the self-efficacy level of patients with chronic diseases.18,19 Older adults who are homebound have been identified as a population with low levels of self-care self-efficacy.20 This research therefore evaluated a telecare program delivered by a nurse case manager with the integrated efforts of a health-social team.

    The study aims were to test the effectiveness of a telecare case management program on self-efficacy, health-related outcomes (activities of daily living [ADLs], instrumental ADLs [IADLs], and medication adherence), perceived well-being (QOL, depression), and use of health care services (outpatient clinic visits, private general practitioner visits, emergency department visits, and hospital admissions).

    Methods

    For this pilot randomized clinical trial, ethical approval was obtained from the Human Subjects Ethics Subcommittee of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. All participants were provided with a full explanation of the study and signed their informed consent prior to baseline data collection. The study followed the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting guideline (the full trial protocol appears in Supplement 1).

    Design and Setting

    This study adopted a single-blind, 2-group randomized clinical trial design in which the data collector was blinded but the participants and health care professionals were not. Recruitment took place in 5 Hong Kong community centers.

    Participants, Recruitment Strategy, and Randomization

    From May 21 to July 20, 2020, the managers in each of the 5 community centers referred 99 individuals who were homebound (defined as going outdoors less than once a week in the previous 6 months)21 and residing within the community service area. Of these individuals, 68 were eligible. They completed the baseline data collection and were enrolled and randomized into groups (Table 1). Inclusion criteria for this study were being 60 years or older and using a smartphone. Exclusion criteria were receiving a diagnosis of dementia; inability to hear, see, or communicate; being confined to bed; having an active psychiatric illness with hospitalization within the previous 6 months; residing in an area with no internet coverage; and having been engaged in other telecare programs.

    A research team member (A.K.C.W.) who was not involved in participant recruitment compiled a random assignment schedule according to Research Randomizer software22 and placed it in a sealed envelope. Once the trained data collectors had collected the participants’ baseline data in the community centers, they informed a designated team member who was unaware of the participants’ identity. The team member then opened the envelope and revealed the group assignment sequentially based on the computer number (1 = telecare group; 2 = control group).

    Interventions
    Telecare Group

    The participants in the telecare group were assigned to a nurse for the duration of this 3-month program. The nurse, functioning as a case manager (NCM), conducted an initial assessment of the participant using the Omaha system via telephone. The Omaha system is a comprehensive assessment tool used widely to help nurses to identify client needs and problems in environmental, psychosocial, physiological, and health-related behavior.23 Working as a team, the NCM and social worker classified the problems listed in the Omaha system into health, social, and health-social partnership focuses. The NCM was primarily responsible for health-focused problems and worked with the social worker to address the other problems. The NCM and the social worker also had monthly case conferences to review the participants’ progress and co-designed, modified, or adjusted their treatment plans accordingly.

    Based on the first assessment result, the NCM empowered the participant to design realistic, achievable individual goals and plans and proactively resolved the barriers to implementation. The NCM would also send weekly, individual-specific videos of tips and reminders through WhatsApp via smartphone to the participants to acquaint them with the skills required to perform self-care activities in health maintenance. The topics included, but were not limited to, self-monitoring of a health condition, medication information, health-promoting activities, self-care practices, and appropriate sources of help in the community. All videos provided to the participants were valid and originated from reliable sources, such as the Hospital Authority and the Department of Health.

    Control Group

    Monthly social telephone calls were made to the participants in the control group by a research assistant who was not involved in data collection. Topics such as, “What have you done today?” and “What is your favorite TV program?” were discussed during the social calls, with the aim to minimize possible social support felt by the older adults during the telephone call.

    Outcome Measures

    Data were collected at 2 time points: before the intervention at screening (T1) and after the intervention within 1 week after the completion of the 3-month program (T2). The data were collected via telephone by the research assistant, with a last follow-up date of October 20, 2020.

    Primary Outcome

    Self-efficacy was the primary outcome of this study, measured by the Chinese version of the 10-item General Self-efficacy Scale.24 Scores were measured on a 4-point Likert scale, with higher scores representing higher self-efficacy levels. The scale was validated in older Chinese adults with a Cronbach α = 0.89.24

    Secondary Outcomes
    Health-Related Outcomes

    Activities of daily living were measured by the 10-item Chinese version of the Barthel Index.25 The total scores ranged from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating greater ability to perform ADLs, such as toileting and grooming. The scale was proven as a valid and reliable tool in a local study.25

    The 9-item Chinese version of the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living scale was used to measure participants’ IADLs.26 The scale has shown good internal consistency and interrater reliability. Scores were measured on a scale of 0 to 3, with 0 indicating that the individual was incapable of performing an IADL and 3 indicating that the individual was capable of performing an IADL independently.

    Medication adherence was measured by the 12-item Adherence to Refills and Medication Scale.27 Total scores ranged from 12 to 48, with lower scores representing better medication adherence. The Adherence to Refills and Medication Scale has demonstrated high validity in identifying medication adherence issues in older adults living in the community.27

    Perceived Well-being Outcomes and Use of Health Care Services

    Quality of life was measured by the Chinese version of the Short Form 12-item scale, version 2. The scale was translated, validated, and proved to be reliable for use among older Hong Kong Chinese adults.28

    Depression was measured by the Chinese version of the Geriatric Depression Scale,29 which had 15 questions that were used to explore participants’ feelings, with dichotomous answers. The highest possible total score was 15, with higher scores representing more severe depressive symptoms. A cutoff point of 5 showed a sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 77%.29 The number of visits to outpatient clinics, private general practitioners, emergency departments, and hospitals were collected from the participants’ subjective reports.

    Participant Characteristics

    Participant characteristics at baseline were reported for descriptive purposes. They were age, sex, marital status, educational level, work status, financial status, accommodation type, family living in the same household, and caretaking support.

    Statistical Analysis
    Sample Size

    Sample size was calculated based on the t test of the primary outcome, which was the difference in mean self-efficacy scores of the 2 groups after the intervention. Assuming a 2-tailed α of .05, statistical power of 0.80, attrition rate of 0.15, and a standardized effect size of 0.45 from a previous self-management interventional study,30 84 participants were required per group. Because this was a pilot study, a target of 35% of the main planned trial was set.31,32 As we assume a 15% dropout rate, the total number of participants required was 68.

    Data Processing and Analysis

    Counts and percentages, means and SDs, or medians with minimum and maximum values were presented for categorical or continuous variables when appropriate. Between-group differences before and after the intervention were evaluated using a 2-sided t test or Mann-Whitney test.

    The between-group (group), within-group (time), and interaction (group × time) effects on the outcome variables were analyzed using a generalized estimating equation. An unstructured working correlation matrix was adopted to indicate the same spacing between measurements for each participant. The generalized estimating equation model included group, time, and interaction of group and time as factors to evaluate each outcome measure except when there was no case at a certain time in a certain group, the outcome would be excluded from being analyzed. The parameter estimate (β), its 95% CI, and the P value of each variable were reported. Intention-to-treat was used as the primary analysis. All tests of significance were 2-sided and set at P < .05.

    Results
    Baseline Characteristics

    Among the 68 participants (mean [SD] age, 71.8 [6.1] years), 12 (17.6%) were men and 56 (82.4%) were women (Table 1). The groups did not have statistically significant differences in either participant characteristics or outcome measures (Table 2) at baseline. The Figure shows the CONSORT diagram.

    Treatment Effects
    Self-efficacy

    At 3 months, there was no statistical difference between the groups with respect to change in self-efficacy. Scores for both groups improved from T1 to T2 (β = 1.68; 95% CI, −0.68 to 4.03; P = .16) (Table 3).

    ADLs and IADLs

    When compared with T1, the ADL scores in both groups increased over time (β = 6.97; 95% CI, 6.08-7.87; P < .001) (Table 3). Statistically significant time effects were also found in the IADL scores between T1 and T2 (β = 2.62; 95% CI, 1.27-3.97; P < .001).

    Medication Adherence and QOL

    The generalized estimating equation model showed statistically significant between-time interaction effects (β = 5.71; 95% CI, 1.00-10.42; P = .02) and group × time interaction effects (β = −8.30; 95% CI, −13.14 to −3.47; P = .001), with the telecare group having better scores for medication adherence (Table 3). A statistically significant time effect was discovered for the mental component of the QOL score (β = 5.16; 95% CI, 1.76-8.57; P = .003) but not for the physical component of the QOL score. However, there was a statistically significant group × time interaction (β = 4.99; 95% CI, 0.29-9.69; P = .04) for the physical component of the QOL score.

    Depression and Use of Health Care Services

    Participants in both groups improved in their depression level in T2 compared with T1; however, there was no statistically significant difference in group, time, or group × time interaction effects (Table 3). In addition, no between-group, within-group, or group × time interaction effects were found in health care service utilization.

    Discussion

    To our knowledge, this is the first trial to investigate the effectiveness of a telecare case management program among older adults who are homebound. Although there was no statistical difference between the groups with respect to improvement in self-efficacy, the evidence generated in this randomized clinical trial suggests that an NCM adopting a health-social approach is effective in improving medication adherence and QOL.

    The findings of this study are important given that older adults who are homebound are more vulnerable, with restricted access to support services. Older adults who are homebound, like many other older adults, would prefer to age at home.33 The current study supported older adults who are homebound in optimizing their capacities to be their own best resources. The support of the NCM and the health-social team encouraged the older adults who were homebound to participate actively in their own care while also allowing them a sense of control over their life.

    Given the challenges that COVID-19 brings to home-based programs, the adoption of telecare is a promising alternative care delivery strategy to home visits and may become a new normal practice beyond the pandemic.34 However, this new technology is not always welcomed by health care professionals and particularly older adults owing to their lesser proficiency in using technology,35,36 which might hinder scaling up and sustaining widespread use of telecare in the long run.37 One of the strengths of this program is that, before its commencement, both the older adults who were homebound and the health-social team had received technological training from the research team on how to download and use the WhatsApp function to send, receive, and watch video clips from the smartphone and to troubleshoot technical issues. To ensure that no technical issues would occur, a trial video clip was sent from a research team member to the telecare group participants one day before the first telephone call by the NCM. With all of these resources and supports in place, the older adults who were homebound and enrolled in this study could use the telecare services and build strong connections with the health-social team without leaving their homes. In addition, technological training can also help build the confidence of elderly individuals who are homebound in using a smartphone to receive self-care tips and information, which subsequently may improve their motivation to adhere to the program and maintain their self-care behavior.38

    Another special feature of the current program was that the team chose video clips rather than oral commands or written materials as a modality for health education and self-care training. Watching videos was found to be the most commonly used and successful strategy to facilitate behavioral change and retain knowledge among older adults.39 Evidence has suggested that video outperforms images or written words because the latter cannot convey dynamic body language and facial expressions.40 Some studies also concurred that integrating a mobile instruction video into the intervention components of a health care program has shown positive results in terms of promoting a healthy diet,41 physical activity,42 and smoking cessation,43 suggesting that using the video format approach as a platform for promoting self-care might be a viable way forward.

    A study by Orgeta et al44 revealed that obtaining social support from a telephone call can help older adults to cope with difficulties. It is thus reasonable to surmise that the increase in self-efficacy and QOL and decrease in depression level in the control group participants were owing to the social effects brought about by the monthly social calls.

    Limitations

    There are several limitations when interpreting the findings of this study. First, the definition of homebound in this study referred to the frequency of leaving the house within the last 6 months. Since pandemic-related social restriction was enforced in Hong Kong during the study period, more older adults, regardless of their physical and functional abilities, preferred to stay in their homes; therefore, there was a chance for older adults without mobility limitations to enroll in the study. Second, the outcomes of this study relied on self-reporting measures by the participants, which might be subject to personal interpretation. Third, this study reported only the outcomes, and there was no information on the process of health-social team coordination of care. Fourth, this was a pilot study with a small number of enrolled participants, which could have limited the statistical power to detect the significance of a group × time interaction effect in the primary and secondary outcome measures.

    Conclusions

    Despite its small pilot design with limited generalizability and the absence of a statistical difference between the 2 groups studied, this randomized clinical study suggests that telecare case management may be useful for enabling older adults who are homebound not only to keep a close connection with health care professionals without leaving their home but also to maintain medication adherence and quality of life during the COVID-19 pandemic. A future large-scale study is needed to confirm this result.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: June 27, 2021.

    Published: September 9, 2021. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.23453

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2021 Wong AKC et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: Arkers Kwan Ching Wong, PhD, RN, School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, One Cheong Wan Road, Hung Hom, Hong Kong (arkers.wong@polyu.edu.hk).

    Author Contributions: Drs A. K. C. Wong and F. K. Y. Wong 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: A. K. C. Wong, F. K. Y. Wong, Chow, S. M. Wong.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

    Drafting of the manuscript: A. K. C. Wong.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

    Statistical analysis: A. K. C. Wong, Lee.

    Obtained funding: A. K. C. Wong, F. K. Y. Wong, Chow.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: S. M. Wong.

    Supervision: F. K. Y. Wong, Chow.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Drs A. K. C. Wong, F. K. Y. Wong, and S. M. Wong and Ms Chow reported receiving grants from the Nethersole Institute of Continuing Holistic Health Education (NICHE) during the conduct of the study. Dr A. K. C. Wong reported receiving grants from the NICHE outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

    Funding/Support: This work was supported by grant P0031004 from the NICHE (Dr A. K. C. Wong).

    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.

    Data Sharing Statement: See Supplement 2.

    Additional Contributions: We thank all of the community centers for their collaboration with the research team.

    References
    1.
    Xiang  X, Chen  J, Kim  M.  Trajectories of homebound status in Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 and older.   Gerontologist. 2020;60(1):101-111. doi:10.1093/geront/gnz023 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    Sterling-Fox  C.  Access to five nonprimary health care services by homebound older adults: an integrative review.   Home Health Care Manag Pract. 2019;31(1):55-69. doi:10.1177/1084822318810384Google ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Zhao  YL, Alderden  J, Lind  B, Stibrany  J.  Risk factors for falls in homebound community-dwelling older adults.   Public Health Nurs. 2019;36(6):772-778. doi:10.1111/phn.12651PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Xiang  X, Brooks  J.  Correlates of depressive symptoms among homebound and semi-homebound older adults.   J Gerontol Soc Work. 2017;60(3):201-214. doi:10.1080/01634372.2017.1286625 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    5.
    Qiu  WQ, Dean  M, Liu  T,  et al.  Physical and mental health of homebound older adults: an overlooked population.   J Am Geriatr Soc. 2010;58(12):2423-2428. doi:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2010.03161.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    6.
    Kim  CO, Jang  SN.  Home-based primary care for homebound older adults: literature review.   Ann Geriatr Med Res. 2018;22(2):62-72. doi:10.4235/agmr.2018.22.2.62 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    7.
    Norman  GJ, Wade  AJ, Morris  AM, Slaboda  JC.  Home and community-based services coordination for homebound older adults in home-based primary care.   BMC Geriatr. 2018;18(1):241. doi:10.1186/s12877-018-0931-z PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    8.
    Stall  N, Nowaczynski  M, Sinha  SK.  Systematic review of outcomes from home-based primary care programs for homebound older adults.   J Am Geriatr Soc. 2014;62(12):2243-2251. doi:10.1111/jgs.13088 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    9.
    Ninnis  K, van den Berg  M, Lannin  NA,  et al.  Information and communication technology use within occupational therapy home assessments: a scoping review.   Br J Occup Ther. 2019;82(3):141-152. doi:10.1177/0308022618786928Google ScholarCrossref
    10.
    Read  J, Jones  N, Fegan  C,  et al.  Remote home visit: exploring the feasibility, acceptability and potential benefits of using digital technology to undertake occupational therapy home assessments.   Br J Occup Ther. 2020;83(10):648-658. doi:10.1177/0308022620921111Google ScholarCrossref
    11.
    Hawley  CE, Genovese  N, Owsiany  MT,  et al.  Rapid integration of home telehealth visits amidst COVID-19: what do older adults need to succeed?   J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020;68(11):2431-2439. doi:10.1111/jgs.16845 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    12.
    Kim  EH, Gellis  ZD, Bradway  CK, Kenaley  B.  Depression care services and telehealth technology use for homebound elderly in the United States.   Aging Ment Health. 2019;23(9):1164-1173. doi:10.1080/13607863.2018.1481925 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    13.
    Gellis  ZD, Kenaley  B, McGinty  J, Bardelli  E, Davitt  J, Ten Have  T.  Outcomes of a telehealth intervention for homebound older adults with heart or chronic respiratory failure: a randomized controlled trial.   Gerontologist. 2012;52(4):541-552. doi:10.1093/geront/gnr134 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    14.
    Abrashkin  KA, Zhang  J, Poku  A.  Acute, post-acute, and primary care utilization in a home-based primary care program during COVID-19.   Gerontologist. 2021;61(1):78-85. doi:10.1093/geront/gnaa158 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    15.
    Tomioka  K, Kurumatani  N, Hosoi  H.  Social participation and cognitive decline among community-dwelling older adults: a community-based longitudinal study.   J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2018;73(5):799-806. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbw059PubMedGoogle Scholar
    16.
    Broderick  L, McCullagh  R, White  EB, Savage  E, Timmons  S.  Perceptions, expectations, and informal supports influence exercise activity in frail older adults.   SAGE Open. 2015;5(2):1-10. doi:10.1177/2158244015580850Google ScholarCrossref
    17.
    Wong  AKC, Wong  FKY, Chang  K.  Effectiveness of a community-based self-care promoting program for community-dwelling older adults: a randomized controlled trial.   Age Ageing. 2019;48(6):852-858. doi:10.1093/ageing/afz095 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    18.
    Farley  H.  Promoting self-efficacy in patients with chronic disease beyond traditional education: a literature review.   Nurs Open. 2019;7(1):30-41. doi:10.1002/nop2.382 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    19.
    Lau  SCL, Bhattacharjya  S, Fong  MWM,  et al.  Effectiveness of theory-based digital self-management interventions for improving depression, anxiety, fatigue and self-efficacy in people with neurological disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   J Telemed Telecare. Published online October 24, 2020. doi:10.1177/1357633X20955122PubMedGoogle Scholar
    20.
    Yamazaki  S, Fujita  K, Imuta  H.  Development of a scale measuring barriers to going out among community-dwelling older adults.   Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2021;21(2):238-244. doi:10.1111/ggi.14111 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    21.
    Yao  NA, Ritchie  C, Cornwell  T, Leff  B.  Use of home-based medical care and disparities.   J Am Geriatr Soc. 2018;66(9):1716-1720. doi:10.1111/jgs.15444 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    22.
    Urbaniak  GC, Plous  S. Research Randomizer. Accessed July 19, 2021. https://www.randomizer.org/
    23.
    Martin  KS.  The Omaha System: A Key to Practice, Documentation, and Information Management. 2nd ed. Health Connections Press; 2005.
    24.
    Leung  DYP, Leung  AYM.  Factor structure and gender invariance of the Chinese General Self-efficacy Scale among soon-to-be-aged adults.   J Adv Nurs. 2011;67(6):1383-1392. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2648.2010.05529.x PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    25.
    Leung  SOC, Chan  CCH, Shah  S.  Development of a Chinese version of the Modified Barthel Index—validity and reliability.   Clin Rehabil. 2007;21(10):912-922. doi:10.1177/0269215507077286 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    26.
    Tong  AYC, Man  DWK.  The validation of the Hong Kong Chinese version of the Lawton Instrumental Activities of Daily Living scale for institutionalized elderly persons.   OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health. 2002;22(4):132-142. doi:10.1177/153944920202200402Google Scholar
    27.
    Jin  H, Kim  Y, Rhie  SJ.  Factors affecting medication adherence in elderly people.   Patient Prefer Adherence. 2016;10:2117-2125. doi:10.2147/PPA.S118121 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    28.
    Lam  CLK, Wong  CKH, Lam  ETP, Lo  YYC, Huang  WW.  Population norm of Chinese (HK) SF-12 Health Survey Version 2 of Chinese adults in Hong Kong.   Hong Kong Practitioner. 2010;32(2):77-86. Accessed July 28, 2021. http://hdl.handle.net/10722/157222Google Scholar
    29.
    Pocklington  C, Gilbody  S, Manea  L, McMillan  D.  The diagnostic accuracy of brief versions of the Geriatric Depression Scale: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2016;31(8):837-857. doi:10.1002/gps.4407 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    30.
    Laforest  S, Nour  K, Gignac  M, Gauvin  L, Parisien  M, Poirier  MC.  Short-term effects of a self-management intervention on health status of housebound older adults with arthritis.   J Appl Gerontol. 2008;27(5):539-567. doi:10.1177/0733464808319712Google ScholarCrossref
    31.
    Cocks  K, Torgerson  DJ.  Sample size calculations for pilot randomized trials: a confidence interval approach.   J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(2):197-201. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.002 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    32.
    Whitehead  AL, Julious  SA, Cooper  CL, Campbell  MJ.  Estimating the sample size for a pilot randomised trial to minimise the overall trial sample size for the external pilot and main trial for a continuous outcome variable.   Stat Methods Med Res. 2016;25(3):1057-1073. doi:10.1177/0962280215588241 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    33.
    Musich  S, Wang  SS, Hawkins  K, Yeh  CS.  Homebound older adults: prevalence, characteristics, health care utilization and quality of care.   Geriatr Nurs. 2015;36(6):445-450. doi:10.1016/j.gerinurse.2015.06.013 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    34.
    Almathami  HKY, Win  KT, Vlahu-Gjorgievska  E.  Barriers and facilitators that influence telemedicine-based, real-time, online consultation at patients’ homes: systematic literature review.   J Med internet Res. 2020;22(2):e16407. doi:10.2196/16407 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    35.
    Khechine  H, Lakhal  S, Pascot  D, Bytha  A.  UTAUT model for blended learning: the role of gender and age in the intention to use webinars.   Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Lifelong Learning. 2014;10(1):33-52. doi:10.28945/1994Google Scholar
    36.
    Moryson  H, Moeser  G.  Consumer adoption of cloud computing services in Germany: investigation of moderating effects by applying a UTAUT model.   International Journal of Marketing Studies. 2016;8(1):14-32. doi:10.5539/ijms.v8n1p14Google ScholarCrossref
    37.
    Greenhalgh  T, Shaw  S, Wherton  J,  et al.  Real-world implementation of video outpatient consultations at macro, meso, and micro levels: mixed-method study.   J Med internet Res. 2018;20(4):e150. doi:10.2196/jmir.9897 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    38.
    Choi  NG, Wilson  NL, Sirrianni  L, Marinucci  ML, Hegel  MT.  Acceptance of home-based telehealth problem-solving therapy for depressed, low-income homebound older adults: qualitative interviews with the participants and aging-service case managers.   Gerontologist. 2014;54(4):704-713. doi:10.1093/geront/gnt083PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    39.
    Free  C, Phillips  G, Galli  L,  et al.  The effectiveness of mobile-health technology-based health behaviour change or disease management interventions for health care consumers: a systematic review.   PLoS Med. 2013;10(1):e1001362. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001362 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    40.
    Schooley  B, San Nicolas-Rocca  T, Burkhard  R.  Patient-provider communications in outpatient clinic settings: a clinic-based evaluation of mobile device and multimedia mediated communications for patient education.   JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2015;3(1):e2. doi:10.2196/mhealth.3732 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    41.
    Spring  B, Pellegrini  C, McFadden  HG,  et al.  Multicomponent mHealth intervention for large, sustained change in multiple diet and activity risk behaviors: the Make Better Choices 2 randomized controlled trial.   J Med internet Res. 2018;20(6):e10528. doi:10.2196/10528 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    42.
    Direito  A, Carraça  E, Rawstorn  J, Whittaker  R, Maddison  R.  mHealth technologies to influence physical activity and sedentary behaviors: behavior change techniques, systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.   Ann Behav Med. 2017;51(2):226-239. doi:10.1007/s12160-016-9846-0 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    43.
    Volk  RJ, Lowenstein  LM, Leal  VB,  et al.  Effect of a patient decision aid on lung cancer screening decision-making by persons who smoke: a randomized clinical trial.   JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(1):e1920362. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.20362 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    44.
    Orgeta  V, Brede  J, Livingston  G.  Behavioural activation for depression in older people: systematic review and meta-analysis.   Br J Psychiatry. 2017;211(5):274-279. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.117.205021 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×