Evaluation of bottom-up interventions targeting community-dwelling frail older people in Belgium: methodological challenges and lessons for future comparative effectiveness studies

Table 5 Global or acute IMA proxies by disability profile and level of ADL and CPS impairment

	Low limit.	IADL (cogn.)	Func.	Func., cogn.	Func., cogn., behav.	P value	Total
Geriatrician
ADL < 3, CPS < 3	4.52	6.88	3.74	13.33	2.78		5.08
ADL < 3, CPS ≥ 3	13.33	13.56	0	13.65	16.88		14.05
ADL ≥ 3, CPS < 3	8.62	0	3.95	4.76	5.36		4.16
ADL ≥ 3, CPS ≥ 3	0	25	30	7.32	9.46		7.88
P value	–	–	–	–	–		***
Total	5.07	8.83	3.96	7.59	10.49	***	6.24
Neurologist
ADL < 3, CPS < 3	8.01	11.36	11.23	6.67	2.78		9.81
ADL < 3, CPS ≥ 3	20.95	20.42	0	18.88	33.12		22
ADL ≥ 3, CPS < 3	12.07	0	9.71	12.28	16.07		10.18
ADL ≥ 3, CPS ≥ 3	0	0	10	17.71	23.42		18.77
P value	–	–	–	–	***		***
Total	8.76	13.93	10.15	16.86	23.99	***	12.89
General practitioner out-of-hours
Total	15.84	20.85	26.78	26.33	19.4	***	23.08
Emergency department + hospitalization
Total	22.06	28.17	36.62	32.96	28.45	***	31.04
Hospitalization
Total	40.62	48.01	61.86	54.88	44.97	***	52.78
Multi-morbidity
Total	91.24	91.01	93.63	93.67	90.66	***	92.53

Table presents for each disability profile (Low limit. Low-level limitations, IADL (cogn.) IADL and low level of cognitive impairment, Func Functional limitations, Func., cogn. Functional & cognitive impairments, func., cogn., behav. Functional, cognitive & behavioural problems) the proportions of people utilizing the service. The p values in columns are obtained from the chi-squared test comparing the disability profiles. The p values in lines are related to the chi-squared test comparing the different levels of ADL and CPS impairment. ***: p value ≤0.001; NS No significant; −: minimum expected value < 5

ISSN: 1472-6963