Table 5.

Effects of home visits on outcome measures of the included trials for the intervention and control group

Author(s), year Country\I/C	Sample Size	Followed up	Follow-up months	Mortality %	Functional status % dependent		Hospital admissions*		Nursing home admission†
					ADL	IADL	mean	mean days	% users	mean days
Dalby [21], 2000 Canada	73/69	59/54	14	10/4			0.4/0.3	19/11	0/1
Stuck [15], 2000 Switzerland	116/231	82/188	36	29/18	39/38	61/63			27/14
van Haastregt [23,24], 2000 Netherlands	159/157	120/115	18	6/9	33.1/31.5‡		0.5/0.6	7/8
Yamada [22], 2003 Japan	184/184	160/149	18	6/8	67/65§
Bouman [12,13], 2007 Netherlands	160/170	139/154	24	18/14	25/26	72/65	1.0/0.8	8/8	6/7	14/14

Notes: I, intervention group; C, control group; ADL, activities of daily living; IADL, instrumental (household) activities of daily living.

* Mean number of admissions and length of stay per person in the intervention and control group, respectively, during the follow-up period.

† Mean percentage of users and length of stay per person in the intervention and control group, respectively, during the follow-up period.

‡ Frenchay activities index (scores 13–52, highest score is most favorable).

§ Any problem in usual activities.

(The results from the study by van Hout et al. [19] have not been published yet; the estimates are not available.)