Table 1 Descriptive information included articles (N = 16 original studies, 25 articles) continued

1. Aggar (2012), Cameron (2013), Fairhall (2012, 2014 & 2015)

237

Fried

1

Case management

12

83.3

4

2. De Vriendt (2016)

168

BEL-profile scale

1

Case management

2,5

80.4

4

3. Dorrestein (2016)

359

Poor self-perceived general health, concerns about falls and related activity avoidance

2

Psychosocial intervention

4

78.3

6

4. Favela (2013)

4.1

89

Rockwood

2

Case management

9

76

3

4.2

88

Rockwood

2

Case management

9

76

3

5. Hall (1992)

167

≥ 65 and admitted by the Long Term Care program to personal care at home

–

Case management

36

77.9

4

6. Kehusmaa (2010), Ollonqvist (2008)

708

Meet the criteria for entitlement to the SII Pensioners’ Care Allowance

2

Case management

8

78.4

4

7. Kim (2015)

66

Fried

1

Pharmaceutical intervention

3

80.7

5

8. Kono (2012 & 2013)

323

Being classified into the two lowest care need levels in the LTCI system: Support Levels 1 and 2 (out of 7)

2

Information provision intervention

24

79.9

2

9. Kono (2016)

360

Being classified into the two lowest care need levels in the LTCI system: Support Levels 1 and 2 (out of 7)

2

Information provision intervention

24

79.2

5

10. Metzelthin (2013, 2014 & 2015)

346

GFI

2

Case management

24

77.2

3

11. Monteserin (2010)

285

Meet 2 of following criteria:≥85y, > = 9 the Gijon Social Scale, ≥2 the Pfeiffer test, ≥2 the Charlson comorbidity index, ≥1 the Yesavage Depression Scale, ≥91 the Barthel index, ≥12 the Mini-Nutritional Assessment Short Form, polymedication, > 1 fall in the last 6 months and daily urinary incontinence in the last 6 months.

2

Information provision intervention

0

81.2

3

12. Perttila (2016)

83

Fried

1

Physical intervention

12

78.8

3

13. Upatising (2013)

32

Fried

1

Technological intervention

12

–

2

14. Van Hout (2010)

651

Self-reported score in the worst quartile of at least two of six COOP–WONCA charts

2

Case management

18

81.4

4

15. Van Leeuwen (2015), Hoogendijk (2016)

15.1

683

Identified by primary care physician as frail

2

Case management

6

80.6

3

15.2

694

Identified by primary care physician as frail

2

Case management

12

80.4

3

15.3

682

Identified by primary care physician as frail

2

Case management

18

80.8

3

16. Williams (1987)

117

No medical evaluation during the preceding year, significant decline in functional ability, unstable medical problem, unmet needs in the performance of ADL, taking three or more medications who had not had a medical evaluation within the past year, dissatisfied with current medical care, seeking a second opinion

1

Case management

8

76.5

6