Trained volunteers to support chronically ill, multimorbid elderly between hospital and domesticity – a systematic review of one-on-one-intervention types, effects, and underlying training concepts

Table 1 Study characteristics and populations

Study	Design	Country	Setting	Sample	Inclusion criteria (Age + Primary indication)	Female gender	Mean age (standard deviation)	Living alone
Psychosocial–coordinative support
White et al. 2012 [111]	RCT	Australia	At home after hospital	649	18–80, Colorectal cancer	40.5%	64.9 (−)	–
Philippi et al. 2015 [108, 109, 112, 130]	CCT	Germany	At home after hospital	244	65+, need for social support (self-developed screening with cut-off value)	69.3%	76.3 (6.3)	70.1%
Physical–cognitive activation
Haider et al. 2017 [113,114,115,116, 127]	RCT	Austria	At home after hospital	80	65+, Prefrail, frail, malnourished	83.8%	82.8(8.0)	75.0%
Etkin et al. 2006 [117]	PP	USA	At home	105	60+, Frail, homebound	86%	78.2(−)	–
Stolee et al. 2012 [119]	PP	Canada	At home	33	55+, Prefrail, frail	68.0%	80.0(8.8)	–
Connelly 2008 [118]	PP	Canada	At home	314	55+, Prefrail, frail, isolated	–	79.9(8.6)	55.7%
Assistance with medication intake
Wang et al. 2013 [120]	RCT	Taiwan	At home after hospital	62	65+, At least two chronic diseases	54.8%	71.3(7.8)	35.5%
Sales 2013 [121]	RCT	USA	At home after hospital	137	18+, Congestive heart failure	57.7%	72.6(64.1)	–

CCT clinical controlled trial, RCT randomized controlled trial, PP studies with a single-group pre–post design

ISSN: 1471-2318