Study	Results	Notes
Patient outcomes: all clinical complications
Adler 1978	All clinical complications: At 7 days after surgery: treatment: 7/56 (12.5%) control: 5/49 (10.2%) observed difference: 2.3% 95% CI −9.8% to 14% Varicose veins treatment: 8/61 (13.1%) control: 0/58 (0%) observed difference: 13.1% 95% CI 5% to 22%	Hernia
Booth 2004	In hospital clinical events T=20/65 (30%) C=8/32 (25%) P=0.55
Ruckley 1978	All clinical complications: At 2 - 3 weeks: treatment: 27/117 (23.1%) control: 17/121 (14%) observed difference: 9.1% 95% CI −19% to 1%	Conditions were combined
Patient outcomes: mortality
Richards 1998	Mortality: Treatment: 12/60 (7.5%) Control: 6/81 (7.4%) [0.1%, −7% to 7%]
Shepperd 1998	Mortality: At 3 months: Hip replacements: Treatment: 0/37 Control: 1/49 Knee replacements: Treatment: 0/47 Control: 0/39 Hysterectomy: Treatment: 0/114 Control: 0/124
Patient outcomes: functional status
Crotty 2002	Functional status at 4 months (median change from baseline, 25th & 75th percentile): Modified Barthel Index treatment: 11.00 (5.5 to 16.0) Control: 8.0 (−2.5 to 13.5) median difference in change score 3.00 p < 0.05 Falls efficacy scale (median, 25th & 75th percentile) treatment: 90.5 (80.5 to 98) control: 79.5 (40.0 to 92. 5) p < 0.05 SF36 Physical component scale: (median change from baseline, 25th & 75th percentile) treatment: −3.4 (−14. 9 to 8.1) control: −3.9 (−19.5 to 11.7) SF36 Mental Component Scale: (median change from baseline, 25th & 75th percentile) treatment: 0.01 control: −11.7 (−23.4 to 0.05)	SF36 PCS
Palmer Hill 2000	change from baseline, 25th & 75th percentileno data reported	SF 36 physical component scale, and number of falls
Richards 1998	Functional status: At 3 months follow-up: Treatment: 1.9 Control: 1.7 [0.17, −0.76 to 1.10]	Barthel Index: Scale 0-20 (low score = high level of dependence)
Patient outcomes: quality of life
Booth 2004	SF-36 PCS at 12 weeks Mean (sd) T=47.4 (11.8) C=49 (11.7) Difference −0.5, 95% CI −5.8 to 4.8, p=0.85 SF36 MCS at 12 weeks Mean (sd) T=48.9 (8.2) C=49.2 (8.6) Difference 0.6, 95% CI −2.7 to 3.8, p=0.73
Richards 1998	Physical fitness: At 3 months follow-up: [−0.05,−0.28 to 0.19] Feelings: At 3 months follow-up: [−0.09, −0.50 to 0.32] Daily activities: At 3 months follow-up: [−0.04, −0.47 to 0.38] Social activities: At 3 months follow-up: [0.07, −0.38 to 0.52] Change in health: At 3 months follow-up: [−0.01, −0.34 to 0.31] Overall health: At 3 months follow-up: [0.10, −0.21 to 0.42] EQ 5D scores: At 3 months: [−0.04, −0.13 to 0.06] EQ 5D thermometer: At 3 months: [−4.6, −11.0 to 2.0]	EQ 5D scores: Possible range 5-15 EQ 5D thermometer: Possible range 0-100
Shepperd 1998	HIP REPLACEMENT Physical fitness: Treatment: 0.42 Control: 0.51 −0.09 (−0.48 to 0.29) Feelings: Treatment: 1.03 Control: 0.78 0.25 (−0.29 to 0.79) Daily activities: Treatment: 1.00 Control: 0.93 0.07 (−0.39 to 0.53) Social activities: Treatment: 1.43 Control: 1.02 0.41 (−0.15 to 0.97) Pain: Treatment: 1.54 Control: 1.69 −0.15 (−0.78 to 0.49) Change in health: Treatment: 0.74 Control: 0.13 0.61 (0.02 to 1.20) Overall health: 0.10 (−0.35 to 0.55) Social support: Treatment: 0.26 Control: 0.40 −0.14 (−0.57 to 0.28) Quality of life: Treatment: 0.97 Control: 0.47 0.50 (0.13 to 0.88) Oxford Hip Score *: Treatment: 4.77 Control: 3.13 1.64 (−1.23 to 4.5) KNEE REPLACEMENT Physical fitness: Treatment: 0.19 Control: 0.29 −0.10 (−0.49 to 0.29) Feelings: Treatment: 0.51 Control: 0.37 0.14 (−0.50 to 0.78) Daily activities: Treatment: 0.68 Control: 0.91 −0.23 (−0.71 to 0.26) Social activities: Treatment: 0.98 Control: 0.91 0.07 (−0.61 to 0.74) Pain: Treatment: 1.02 Control: 1.06 −0.04 (−0.62 to 0.53) Change in health: Treatment: 0.48 Control: 0.62 −0.14 (−0.73 to 0.45) Overall health: Treatment: −0.11 Control: 0.15 −0.26 (−0.65 to 0.12) Social support: Treatment: 0.18 Control: −0.03 [0.21, −0.33 to 0.74] Quality of life: Treatment: 0.42 Control: 0.40 [0.02, −0.37 to 0.41] Bristol knee score *: Treatment: −3.00 Control: −4.06 [1.06, −1.58 to 3.70] HYSTERECTOMY Physical fitness Treatment: 0.04 Control: 0.04 [0.00, −0.43 to 0.44] Feelings: Treatment: 0.70 Control: 0.84 [−0.14, −0.48 to 0.19] Daily activities: Treatment: 0.52 Control: 0.45 [0.07, −0.25 to 0.38] Social activities: Treatment: 0.56 Control: 0.52 [0.04, −0.30 to 0.38] Pain: Treatment: 1.22 Control:1.20 [0.02, −0.42 to 0.48] Change in health: Treatment: 1.45 Control: 1.36 [0.09, −0.22 to 0.40] Overall health: Treatment: 1.09 Control: 0.82 [0.27, −0.06 to 0.58] Social support: Treatment: 0.48 Control:0.42 [0.06, −0.27 to 0.37] Quality of life: Treatment: 0.65 Control: 0.67 [−0.02, −0.30 to 0.27] SF-36 physical functioning: Treatment: −4.82 Control: −3.02 [−1.80, −8.28 to 4.69]	HIP REPLACEMENT Dartmouth COOP charts: Scale 1-5 (low score = good quality of life) Follow up data at 3 months for: Treatment=36 Control=45 *Oxford hip score. Baseline score measured at 1 month. Scale 12-60 (high score = high level of impairment) KNEE REPLACEMENT Dartmouth COOP charts: Scale 1-5 (low score = good quality of life) Follow up data at 3 months for: Treatment=45 Control=35 *Bristol knee score. Baseline score done at 1 month. Scale 0-50 (low score = poor level of functioning) HYSTERECTOMY Dartmouth COOP charts: Scale 1-5 (low score = good quality of life) Follow up data at 3 months for: Treatment=45 Control=35
Patient outcomes: patient satisfaction
Adler 1978	Patient satisfaction: At 14 days: treatment: 76/117 (64.9%) control: 62/107 (57.9%) observed difference: 7% 95% CI −6% to 20%	Patients were asked if they were content with their length of stay in hospital
Crotty 2002	Patient satisfaction: median score (25th & 75th percentile) treatment: 21.0 (19.0 to 23.0) control: 20.0 (18.0 to 22.0)	Only 20% of those with a fracture were eligible and agreed to enter trial
Richards 1998	Quality of service (excellent): Treatment: 50.7% Control: 44.6% [6.1%, −8.6% to 20.8%] Received needed services (all of the time): Treatment: 63% Control: 60% [3.0%, −11.5% to 17.4%] Content with care (all of the time): Treatment: 69.6 Control: 56.9 [12.7,−1.6 to 27.0] Received all help needed (yes): Treatment: 83.8 Control:75.4 [8.4, −3.7 to 20.6] Discussions with staff (excellent): Treatment: 47.4 Control: 27.7 [19.7, 5.9 to 33.5] Involved in decision making (as much as wanted): Treatment: 79.4 Control:71.5 [7.7, −5.7 to 21.1] Information about illness (as much as wanted): Treatment: 76.7 Control:80.0 [−3.3, −15.7 to 9.2] Information on treatment (as much as wanted): Treatment: 77.5 Control:80.7 [−3.2, −11.2 to 17.8] Privacy (as much as wanted): Treatment: 84.7 Control: 88.1 [−3.4, −13.7 to 6.9] Informal practical support (as much as wanted): Treatment: 87 Control: 93.2 [−6.2, −14.8 to 2.4] Informal emotional support (as much as wanted): Treatment: 93.9 Control: 96.6 [−2.7, −8.9 to 3.5]	Patient satisfaction measured at 4 weeks follow-up
Ruckley 1978	Patient satisfaction: Advantages seen by patients: treatment: 108/117 (92.3%) control: 95/121 (78.5%) difference: 13.8% 95% CI 5% to 23% Disadvantages seen by patients for carers: treatment = 39/117 (33.3%) control = 14/121 (11.6%) Difference: 21.8% 95% CI 11.5% to 32% At discharge from hospital at home, or hospital: Treatment=25.0 (3.11) Control=24.66 (3.05) [0.83, −5.23 to 6.89] At discharge from hospital at home, or hospital: Treatment=25.0 (3.11) Control=24.66 (3.05) [0.83, −5.23 to 6.89]
Shepperd 1998	HIP REPLACEMENT Patient satisfaction: At discharge from hospital at home, or hospital: Treatment=27.2 (5.2) Control=25 (4.7) [2.2, −2.63 to 7.02] Patient preference: At discharge from place of care: Treatment: 85.7% Control: 50% [35.7%, 16.7% to 54.8%] KNEE REPLACEMENT Patient satisfaction: At discharge from hospital at home, or hospital: Treatment: 27.8 (4.1) Control: 25.00 (5.19) [2.77, −1.91 to 7.46] Patient preference: At discharge from place of care: Treatment: % Control [34%, 14% to 54%] HYSTERECTOMY Resumption of domestic duties: At discharge from hospital at home, or hospital: Mean difference [−0.15, −0.35 to 0.05] Resume parental responsibilities before feeling well enough: At discharge from hospital at home, or hospital: Mean difference [−0.24, −0.46 to −0.02] Patient preference: At discharge from place of care: Treatment: 85.15% Control: 66.7% [19%, 8% to 30%]	Patient satisfaction - using modified version of satisfaction scale developed by Pound, maximum score of 33, indication high level of satisfaction Resumption of domestic duties and parental responsibilities - p;atients were asked to agree or disagree with statement on a 0 - 3 scale (3 indicating high level of agreement) Patient preference - patients reporting they had received their preferred place of care
Carer outcomes
Crotty 2002	Median change from baseline and 25th & 75th percentile: SF36 Physical component scale: treatment: −0.9 (−7.1, 5.3) control: 5.2 (−16.4, 6.0) SF 36 Mental component scale: treatment: 3.7 (−2.5. 9.9) control: −4.7 (−19.8, 10.3) Caregiver Strain Index: treatment: 1.0 (0, 4.0) control: 2.0 (0, 6.8) Carer time spent: treatment: 18.6% (6.3 to 30.9) control: 22.1% (9.6 to 34.7)	4 month follow up SF 36 higher score indicates greater improvement, Carer Strain Index a lower score indicates improvement
Shepperd 1998	HIP REPLACEMENT Carer Strain Index: Treatment median: 0.00 Control median:1.00 Mann Whitney p = 0.34 Carer satisfaction: Treatment: 18.2 (2.5) Control: 18.8 (2.5) [−0.68, −4.09 to 2.75] Carer preference: At 3 months: Difference: 18.9%, (−1.36% to 39.2%) KNEE REPLACEMENT Carer Strain Index: Treatment: 0.25 Control:−0.58 [0.83, 95% CI −0.79 to 2.45] Carer satisfaction: Treatment: 19.57 (3.46) Control: 18.2 (3.9) [1.37, −2.55 to 5.29] Carer preference: At 3 months: Treatment: 87.5% Control: 71.4% Difference: 16.1% (−24.5% to 56.6%) HYSTERECTOMY Carer Strain Index: Treatment: 0.15 Control: 0.28 [−0.13, −0.77 to 0.52] Carer satisfaction: Resumption of domestic duties: mean difference −0.15, 95% CI −0.35 to 0.05 Resumption of parental responsibilities: mean differrence −0.24, 95% CI −0.46 to −0.02 Carer preference: At 3 months: Difference 19%, 95% CI 8% to 30%	HIP REPLACEMENT Carer Strain Index - median change from baseline at 3 months Carer satisfaction - using modified version of satisfaction scale developed by Pound, scale 0-24, high score indicating high level of satisfaction Carer preference - carers reporting they had received their preferred place of care KNEE REPLACEMENT and HYSTERECTOMY Carer Strain Index - mean change from baseline at 3 months Carer satisfaction - modified version of scale developed by Pound, scale 0-24, high score indicating high level of satisfaction Carer preference - carers reporting they had received their preferred place of care (KNEE REPLACEMENT)
GP workload
Adler 1978	Verbal report	No p value given, insufficient data to calculate CI
Crotty 2002	Visits to GP treatment: 3.3 (2.4 to 30.9) control: 4.5 (3.3 to 5.8) Use of community services: treatment: 19/34 (63%) control: 23/32 (77%)	At 4 month follow up
Ruckley 1978	At 3 weeks post-op: 8 minutes extra for day care patients	No p value given, insufficient data to calculate CI
Shepperd 1998	Patients recovering from a hip replacement: Home and surgery visits: median difference: £27.35 p < 0.06 Patients recovering from a knee replacement: Home and surgery visits: median difference: £0.00 Patients recovering from a hysterectomy: Home and surgery visits: median difference: £0.00	Mann Whitney test
Readmission to hospital
Crotty 2002	Mean readmission rate at 4 months: treatment: 0.22 (0.07 to 0.46) control: 0.22 (0.01 to 0.45)
Palmer Hill 2000	Readmission treatment 1/32; control 1/28 Re admission days: treatment 0.22 (0.01 to .045) control: 0.27 (0.07 to 0.46)	Follow up time not specified, 4 months follow up for re admission days
Richards 1998	Treatment: 5.6 (13.84) Control: 4.8 (12.17) Difference 0.8 (−2.78 to 4.38) Treatment: 42/159 (26.4%) Control: 17/81 (21%) Difference 5.4% (−5.8% to 16.6%)	Re admission days at 3 months (mix of surgical and medical patients)
Ruckley 1978	At 2 to 3 weeks: treatment: 0/117 (0%) control: 2/121 (1.65%) observed difference 1.65% 95% CI −3.92% to 0.62%
Shepperd 1998	KNEE REPLACEMENT At 3 months follow-up: Treatment: 4/47 (8.5%) Control: 1/39 (2.6%) Difference 5.9 (−3.5 to 15.3%) HIP REPLACEMENT At 3 months follow-up: Treatment: 2/37 (5.4%) Control: 1/49 (2.0%) Difference 3.4% (−4.9% to 11.7%) HYSTERECTOMY At 3 months follow-up Treatment: 7/114 (6.1%) Control: 13/124 (10.5%) Difference −4.3% (−11.3% to 2.6%)
Cost
Adler 1978	1971/72 prices Social cost (health service, society, patient) difference: £6.90 per male hernia patient, difference: £19.62 per female varicose vein patient	No p value given, insufficient data to calculate CI
Booth 2004	Hospital costs for surgery T=£5644 C=£5629 difference £15, 95% CI −363 to 457 Costs of readmission T=£185 C=£492 Difference £−306.00 95% CI £−758 to £61 Primary care costs T=£58 C=£63 Difference £−5, 95% CI −£32 to 18 Cost of hospital visits (includes pre admission clinic, inpatient care, and home costs) T=£240 C=£198 Difference £42, 95% CI −£45 to 124 Total costs at 12 weeks (include inpatient hospital care, home care, primary care, readmission and home visit costs. T=£6127 C=£6381 Difference £−254 95% CI −£919 to 348	Health service perspective. Costs estimated for each patient, unit costs obtained from the hospital financial figures and published data
Richards 1998	Total cost: Treatment: £2,516 Control: £3,292 Difference £750	No estimates of variance, no test of statistical significance, confidence intervals can not be calculated Cost data financial year 1996 for community services
Ruckley 1978	1975/76 prices Health service costs (for a 48 hour admission): treatment = £16 per patient control: £46 per patient	No p value given, insufficient data to calculate CI
Shepperd 1998	HIP REPLACEMENT Mean hospital costs: Treatment: £515.42 (473.20) Control: £776.30 (364.53) Difference: −260.88, 95% CI −441.56 to −80.19 p<0.01 Mean hospital at home costs Treatment: £351.24 (240.58) Mean total health service costs: Treatment: £911.39 (563.76) Control: £815.70 (347.99) Difference: £95.69 ratio of geometric mean 1.05, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.27, p>0.50 KNEE REPLACEMENT Mean hospital costs: Treatment: £1092.24 (615.27) Control: £1348.35 (625.94) Difference: −256.11, 95% CI −524.61 to 12.38 p>0.06 Mean hospital at home costs Treatment: £348.16 (275.25) Mean total health service costs: Treatment: £1461.62 (666.61) Control: £1375.36 (637.76) Difference: £86.26 ratio of geometric mean 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.26 p>0.55 HYSTERECTOMY Mean hospital costs: Treatment: £487.43 (350.20) Control: £647.77 (496.27) Difference: −160.34, ratio of geometric mean 0.76, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.87 p<0.01 Mean hospital at home costs Treatment: £250.18 (273.54) Mean total health service costs: Treatment: £771.78 (408.72) Control: £679.39 (439.83) Difference: £92.39 ratio of geometric mean 1.15, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.29 p<0.01	Cost data financial year 1994/1995. Health service perspective, dependency scores developed to account for the different resouces used during a patient’s inpatient admission. Costs calculated at the patient level
Length of stay
Booth 2004	Total hospital length of stay Mean (sd) T=5.3 (2.68) C=8.0 (1.78) P<0.001
Crotty 2002	Hospital length of stay, mean (95% CI) treatment 7.8 days sd 9.6 (4.5 to 11.0) control: 14.3 days sd 10.8 (10.5 to 18.1) difference 6.5 days p<0.05 Total days of care: treatment: 28.3 days (23.1 to 33.6) control: 14.3 days (10.5 to 18.1)	SD calculated from published CI
Richards 1998	Hospital length of stay for patients with a surgical condition: Treatment (n=104) mean:18.48 (17.1) Control (n=54) mean: 26.59 (24.61) Difference −8.11, 95% CI −14.7 to −1.51 Length of stay post randomisation (elective surgical centre) treatment mean (n=11): 1.8 (1.7) control mean(n=24): 4.2 (3.12) difference −2.4, 95% CI −4.05 to −0.75 Length of stay post randomisation (acute hospital) Treatment mean (n=130): 3.1 (3.24) Control (n=68): 13.5 (11.75) Difference −10.4, 95% CI 8.23 to 12.6 Total length of stay for patients with a surgical condition: Treatment (n=106) mean: 28.98 (18.12) Control (n=54) mean: 26.59 (24.6), difference 2.39, 95% CI −4.39 to 9.17 Length of stay post randomisation in rehabilitative care: treatment mean (n=79): 12.2 control mean (n=158): 16.8	Length of stay for patients with a surgical condition - data obtained from authors Length of stay post randomisation (elective surgical centre, acute hospital, in rehabilitative care - published data
Shepperd 1998	HOSPITAL LENGTH OF STAY Patients recovering from a hip replacement: Treatment: 8.11 (5.52) Control: 11.87 (4.52) Difference −3.75 95% CI −5.92 to −1.58 Patients recovering from a knee replacement: Treatment: 10.28 (4.6) Control: 13.31 (4.57) Difference −3.02 95% CI-5.01 to −1.04) Patients recovering from a hysterectomy: Treatment: 4.34 (1.86) Control: 5.79 (2.98) Difference −1.44 95% CI-2.09 to −0.79 TOTAL DAYS OF CARE Patients recovering from a hip replacement: Treatment: 14.69 (5.13) Control: 11.87 (4.52) Difference −2.84 95% CI 0.75 to 4.93 Patients recovering from a knee replacement: Treatment: 16 (5.44) Control: 13.31 (4.57) Difference 2.69 95% CI 0.5 to 4.88 Patients recovering from a hysterectomy: Treatment: 7.45 (2.59) Control: 5.79 (2.98) Difference 1.66 95% CI 0.94 to 2.39	Hospital length of stay - mean (sd) unless stated otherwise Total days of care - mean (sd) unless stated otherwise
Carer satisfaction
Adler 1978	Difference between groups reported as significant with carer in the treatment group less satisfied	No p value given, insufficient data to calculate CI
Ruckley 1978	At 1 week: Advantages seen by carers for others: treatment: 31/117 (26.5%) control:12/121 (9.9%) observed difference: 16.6% p < 0.001 95% CI 6.9% to 26% Advantages seen by carers for patients: treatment: 97/117 (83%) control: 98/121 (81%) observed difference 1.9% 95% CI −7.8% to 11.7% Advantages seen by carers for themselves: treatment: 79/117 (67.5%) control: 86/121 (71.1%) observed difference - 3.6% 95% CI −15.3% to 8.2% Disadvantages seen by carers for patients: treatment: 26/117 (22.2%) control: 14/121 (11.6%) observed difference: 10.6% p < 0.05 95% CI 1.2% to 20% Disadvantages seen by carers of themselves: treatment: 38/117 (32.5%) control: 12/121 (9.9%) observed difference: 22.6% p < 0.001 95% CI 12% to 33% Disadvantages seen by carers for others: treatment: 5/117 (4.3%) control: 6/121 (4.9%) observed difference −0.7% 95% CI −6% to 4.6%