Hughes 1992.
Methods | RCT | |
Participants | People who had an estimated life expectancy of < 6 months were recruited People requiring terminal care (73% in the intervention group and 80% in the control group had a diagnosis of cancer) Number of participants in 3 years: T = 83, C = 85 Average age: T = 65.7 years, C = 63.3 years | |
Interventions | Hospital at home Type of service: physician‐led Skill mix and size of team: nurses; 1 physiotherapist; 1 dietitian; 1 social worker; health technicians Control group: inpatient hospital care | |
Outcomes | Mortality, functional status, psychological well‐being, cognitive status, patient satisfaction, readmission, cost, inpatient hospital days, use of other health services, caregiver satisfaction, caregiver morale Follow‐up: 1 month, 6 months |
|
Notes | US study | |
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No information |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | No information |
Blinding (performance bias and detection bias) All outcomes | High risk | It was not possible for participants to be blinded to the intervention, hence there is a risk that intervention status may have biased assessments of participant functioning |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | Hospital databases used for healthcare utilisation data |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | No information |
Baseline measures | Low risk | No differences in key baseline characteristics |
Protection against contamination | Unclear risk | No information |