THE PREVENTION FOR ELDERLY PERSONS (PEP) PROGRAM - A MODEL OF MUNICIPAL AND ACADEMIC PARTNERSHIP TO MEET THE NEEDS OF OLDER PERSONS FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES

Citation
Db. Reuben et al., THE PREVENTION FOR ELDERLY PERSONS (PEP) PROGRAM - A MODEL OF MUNICIPAL AND ACADEMIC PARTNERSHIP TO MEET THE NEEDS OF OLDER PERSONS FOR PREVENTIVE SERVICES, Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 44(11), 1996, pp. 1394-1398
Citations number
29
Categorie Soggetti
Geiatric & Gerontology","Geiatric & Gerontology
ISSN journal
00028614
Volume
44
Issue
11
Year of publication
1996
Pages
1394 - 1398
Database
ISI
SICI code
0002-8614(1996)44:11<1394:TPFEP(>2.0.ZU;2-L
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To create a program to identify preventive needs for commun ity-dwelling older persons and incorporate intervention strategies to improve implementation of these services. DESIGN: Program development and case-series. SETTING: Community-based meal sites, academically adm inistered program. PARTICIPANTS: Persons 60 years of age or aider atte nding meal sites and their primary care physicians. MEASUREMENTS: Demo graphic characteristics, self-reported preventive health behaviors and services, blood pressure measurement. RESULTS: During the first 2 yea rs of the program, 927 persons 60 years of age or older were screened. The most common physician-initiated preventive recommendations were: tetanus booster (72%), aspirin prophylaxis (68%), pneumonia vaccinatio n (61%), and colorectal cancer screening (51%). The most common self-c are recommendations have been: calcium supplementation (54% of women) and breast self examinations (51% of women). As part of the adherence intervention, we were able to complete health educator calls for 600 ( 65%) subjects. In addition, the physicians of 599 (65%) subjects were contacted either by telephone (n = 496) or by letter only (n = 97). CO NCLUSION: A community-based preventive services program can identify l arge numbers of unmet preventive services needs, and a dual interventi on strategy aimed at meeting these needs can be delivered successfully to the majority of participants. Implementation rates of specific rec ommendations and impacts on health outcomes remain to be determined.