Cited by 91Dementia and Cognitive Impairment ResearchGeriatric Care and Nursing HomesIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders

Comparison of evidence-based interventions on outcomes of hospitalized, cognitively impaired older adults

Open access
Naylor, Mary D, Hirschman, Karen B, Hanlon, Alexandra L, Bowles, Kathryn H, Bradway, Christine, McCauley, Kathleen M, Pauly, Mark V·2014·Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Abstract

AIM: This article reports the effects of three evidence-based interventions of varying intensity, each designed to improve outcomes of hospitalized cognitively impaired older adults. MATERIALS & METHODS: In this comparative effectiveness study, 202 older adults with cognitive impairment (assessed within 24 h of index hospitalization) were enrolled at one of three hospitals within an academic health system. Each hospital was randomly assigned one of the following interventions: Augmented Standard Care (ASC; lower dose: n = 65), Resource Nurse Care (RNC; medium dose: n = 71) or the Transitional Care Model (TCM; higher dose: n = 66). Since randomization at the patient level was not feasible due to potential contamination, generalized boosted modeling that estimated multigroup propensity score weights was used to balance baseline patient characteristics between groups. Analyses compared the three groups on time with first rehospitalization or death, the number and days of all-cause rehospitalizations per patient and functional status through 6-month postindex hospitalization. RESULTS: In total, 25% of the ASC group were rehospitalized or died by day 33 compared with day 58 for the RNC group versus day 83 for the TCM group. The largest differences between the three groups on time to rehospitalization or death were observed early in the Kaplan-Meier curve (at 30 days: ASC = 22% vs RNC = 19% vs TCM = 9%). The TCM group also demonstrated lower mean rehospitalization rates per patient compared with the RNC (p < 0.001) and ASC groups (p = 0.06) at 30 days. At 90-day postindex hospitalization, the TCM group continued to demonstrate lower mean rehospitalization rates per patient only when compared with the ASC group (p = 0.02). No significant group differences in functional status were observed. CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that the TCM intervention, compared with interventions of lower intensity, has the potential to decrease costly resource use outcomes in the immediate postindex hospitalization period among cognitively impaired older adults.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2217/cer.14.14

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Naylor, M. D., Hirschman, K. B., Hanlon, A. L., Bowles, K. H., Bradway, C., McCauley, K. M., & Pauly, M. V.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Naylor, Mary D
Venue
Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research
Published
2014-05
Volume
3
Issue
3
Pages
245-257
ISSN
  • 2042-6305 (ISSN-L)
  • 2042-6313
OpenAlex
W2083604329
Cited by
91
References
62
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
FWCI
6.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (R01AG023116)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Dementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Geriatric Care and Nursing Homes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Keywords
cognitive impairment, older adults, hospitalized patients, Transitional Care Model, hospital readmission, mortality, functional status, comparative effectiveness, post-acute care
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Cognition Disorders, Continuity of Patient Care, Female, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Readmission, Treatment Outcome, Caregivers, Evidence-Based Medicine, Comparative Effectiveness Research

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review