Self-care telephone talks as a health-promotion intervention in urban home-living persons 75+ years of age: a randomized controlled study

Abstract

AimThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a telephone-based self-care intervention among urban living individuals 75+ years of age by comparing self-reported perceived health, mental health, sense of coherence, self-care ability, and self-care agency before and after the intervention.Materials and methodsIn a randomized controlled study, 15 persons answered a questionnaire about perceived health, mental health, sense of coherence, self-care ability, and self-care agency. In a sex- and age-matched control group (n=15), the same questions were answered. Data were collected before and after intervention. An open-ended question about experiences of the intervention was included in the last questionnaire. The intervention consisted of a first meeting with health professionals and additional five self-care telephone calls. The control group did not receive any intervention or attention except for the questionnaires. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the study group. To compare the intervention group and control group on nominal and ordinal levels, the McNemar test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, respectively, were chosen.ResultsThirty individuals (14 females and 16 males) participated in the study, ranging in age between 75 and 93 years. A significant difference was obtained in the intervention group regarding mental health. Mental health improved significantly in the intervention group (P=0.037). In the control group, mental health, sense of coherence, self-care ability, and self-care agency showed worse outcome results after the intervention (19 weeks).ConclusionSelf-care telephone talks improved mental health significantly in our sample, and mental health focus could be understood as a possible condition for health promotion to take place. Structured self-care telephone talks have proved to be successful and a relevant method to use in practice.

Applications of Salutogenesis to Aged and Highly-Aged Persons: Residential Care and Community Settings

“…To the contrary, an intervention using self-care telephone talks found no effects on the sense of coherence of the participants (Sundsli, Söderhamn, Espnes, & Söderhamn, 2014).…”

Effects of self-management support programmes on activities of daily living of older adults: A systematic review

“…The control group received care as usual (n = 6) and/or an educational leaflet/booklet (n = 3) or a tour at the senior centre (n = 1). In the study by Sundsli et al (2014) the control group did not receive any intervention or attention at all and in the study by Alp et al (2007) the control subjects were instructed to maintain their sedentary lifestyle. The control group in the study by Coleman et al (2012) received the intervention afterwards.…”

“…The key domains in the summary assessment of the risk of bias for the outcome on the activities of daily living were 'allocation', 'incomplete outcome data' and 'selective reporting'. As for allocation, in the majority of the included studies (n = 7) the method used to conceal the allocation sequence remained 'unclear' ( Alp et al, 2007, Elzen et al, 2007, Ersek et al, 2003, Friedman et al, 2009, Friedman et al, 2014, Meng et al, 2007and Sundsli et al, 2014. In one study, this criterion was appraised as 'high risk of bias' because the control group had access to activities that were available to the intervention group (Leveille et al, 1998).…”

“…Only when blinding to group allocation was described explicitly or it was clearly stated that the assessor was not involved in the intervention, the risk of bias for this domain was 'low'. There were important concerns about other risks of bias, not addressed in the domains of the used risk of bias tool; for example, a small sample size (Sundsli et al, 2014) or using measurement instruments that had not been validated (Ersek et al, 2003). Only in the studies by Alp et al (2007), Leveille et al (1998) and Wetzels et al (2008) was there no evidence of other risks of bias.…”

“…Second, there were less intensive programmes (≤one session a month), with a long duration (≥one year), using an individual approach (Friedman et al, 2009, Friedman et al, 2014, Leveille et al, 1998, Meng et al, 2007and Meng et al, 2009. Third, there were three programmes with an intermediate duration of 6-12 months, a less intensive programme (≤one session a month) and individual and/or group sessions (Girdler et al, 2010, Sundsli et al, 2014and Wetzels et al, 2008.…”