Table 4 Summary table on the type of intervention and main outcomes of the studies, 2022

(Ha and Park, 2020 [37]), South Korea

• Older people ≥ 65 years

• Registered with a seniors’ centre

• n = 40: 20 participants in the intervention group and 20 participants in the control group

• PNIF 2 times per week × 12 weeks (Total 24 sessions)

• 6 rounds of telephone support × 10–20 min per

session, once every 2 weeks

• Did not state whether assessors were blinded to the participant’s group allocation

• Two sessions: Session 1 and Session 2 were given for 12 weeks in consideration of individuals’ level of health, preference, and needs

Session 1: Exercise and physical activity 2 times per week × 12 weeks

• Upper and lower limb resistance exercises

• The routine was repeated for 30 min

• Range of motion exercises as a cool-down exercise

Session 2: Nutritional and psychosocial interventions

• Nutrition education and counselling tailored to individuals’ health status, chronic conditions, diet, household structure, and living environment

• Education on mental health, such as depression relief and stress management

• The intervention was provided once per week for approximately 20 min per session for 12 weeks

• Data were collected using self-administered or face-to-face interviews three times: screening test, pre-test, and post-test

• CHS frailty index decreased from 1.45 to 0.70 in the intervention group but increased from 1.25 to 1.80 in the control group (P < 0.001)

• CHS frailty index scores range from 0 to 5

• The intervention group’s average SPPB score increased from 10.30 to 10.90 (SD = 1.52), while the control group’s score decreased from 9.70 to 9.10 (SD = 1.94) (P < 0.007)

• SPPB scores range from zero to 12 possible points

• MNA score increased after the completion of the program in both the intervention group and the control group by 2.58 (SD = 2.42) and 0.57 (SD = 2.07), respectively (P = 0.009)

• MNA score had a maximum total of 30 points

• The intervention group’s GDS-15 score was 0.9 lower than that of the control group (P = 0.018)

• No statistically significant between-group differences in ESSI (P = 0.779)

• The GDS-15 score ranges from 0 to 15

• No cost-effectiveness analysis was reported

(Markle-Reid, Browne and Gafni, 2011 [38]), Canada

• Older people ≥ 65 years with a range of chronic health conditions (n = 210)

• Frail older people were eligible for home care services regardless of any level of disease severity, and other co-morbidities

• Mentally competent (or with a substitute decision maker available) and competent in English (or with an interpreter available)

• Multi-component, HPDP programmes for 6 or 12 months^a

• 1 × per month home visits; comprehensive in-home assessment of known risk factors for frailty

• Linkage and referral to health and social services

• Visits by a nurse or with other^b health professionals

• Did not state whether assessors blinded to the participants’ group allocation

• HPDP intervention group had greater improvement in HRQOL and reductions in frailty compared to the usual home care

• SF-36 scores range from 0 (worst) to 100 (best)

• Clinically improvement in physical functioning mean score 5.87 to 15.73 (P = 0.009)

• Statistically significant reduction in depressive symptom scores 2.72 (P = 0.022)

• Significant improvement in social support score 5.26 (P = 0.009)

• Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted, and the cost analysis showed that even when the costs of the HPDP interventions were included in the total cost, there was no difference in the total per-person cost of health services

(Markle-Reid et al. 2006 [39]), Canada

• Older people ≥ 75 years (n = 288), newly referred to and eligible for personal support services through the Community Care Access Centre (CCAC)

• Nurses visited the home over a 6-month period

• One telephone contact over the 6-month follow-up

• Conducted initial and ongoing health assessments, identified, and managing risk factors for functional decline (e.g., depression, dementia, polypharmacy, and co-occurring illnesses) and provided health education regarding healthy lifestyles, and the management of chronic illnesses using a participatory approach

• Data were collected at baseline (T1); and at 6 months following randomization (T2)

• Did not state whether assessors blinded to the participants’ group allocation

• Intervention resulted in better mental health functioning 2.61 (P = 0.011), reduced rates of depression 1.17 (P = 0.022), and enhanced perceptions of social support 2.30 (P = 0.009)

• An increase in role functioning related to emotional health and an increase in mental health functioning for the intervention group compared to a decrease in the usual care group

• Cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted, and there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the mean cost of all types of health and social services

(Marcus-Varwijk et al. 2020 [36]), Netherlands

• Community-dwelling older people ≥ 60 years (n = 1387)

• Nurse-led consultation by a community health nurse

• Consultations was provided in the areas where older people living

• Nurse conducted a comprehensive health and well-being assessment, offered tailored advice and referred to other healthcare professionals

• Data from the intervention and care-as-usual groups were obtained at baseline (T1) and at a 1-year follow-up (T2)

• Did not state whether assessors blinded to the participants’ group allocation

• Intervention group had significantly higher median scores on the GFI of 3 (P < 0.01)

• The GFI score ranges from 0 to 15

• Within the intervention group an increase of 6% of older people, who rated their health status as ‘good’ was found between baseline and 1-year follow-up and this change was not statistically significant

• CHCO-intervention does not improve health related behaviour measured after 1 year follow-up

• The intervention group had showed a higher physical morbidity 1.73 (P < 0.001). However, there was no statistical differences in psychological morbidity 1.06 (P = 0.22)

• No cost-effectiveness analysis was reported

(Song and Boo, 2022 [1]), South Korea

• Older people ≥ 65 years or older (n = 126), with low SES, prefrail or frail living alone in the community

• Multicomponent interventions

• Exercise, cognitive training, and education on nutrition

• 1 time per week × 12 weeks (Total 12 sessions)

• The researchers who collected and analysed the data were blinded to the participants’ group allocation

• Data were collected at three time points: pre-intervention (T0), postintervention (T1), and at the 12 weeks follow-up (T2)

• Non-significant reduction in frailty score from pre-intervention (T0) to 12 weeks follow-up (T2) -2.08 (P = 0.45)

• FI-28 score ranges from one to 28

• Significant improvements in levels of depression − 1.56 (P = 0.012), social activity 1.09 (P = 0.002), and social support 6.89 (P = 0.005) from pre-intervention (T0) to post-test up to 12 weeks follow-up (T2)

• No cost-effectiveness analysis was reported

(Ng et al. 2015 [40]), Singapor

• Older people ≥ 65 years identified through door-to-door open invitation

• Able to ambulate without personal assistance and living at home

• n = 246 participants: 49 in the nutrition supplementation group, 50 in cognitive training, 48 in physical training, 49 in combination, and 50 in the control group

Physical exercise (PE)

• Conducted by a qualified trainer and tailored to individual abilities

• 90 min duration, on 2 days per week for 12 weeks followed by 12 weeks of home-based exercises

• Participants performed the exercises in groups of 8 to 10

Nutrition Intervention (NI):

• Each participant provided with several supplements: iron and folate, vitamin B6, vitamin B12, calcium, and vitamin D taken daily for 24 weeks

Cognitive Training (CT):

• In first 12 weeks, participants attended 1 per week × 2 h session of CT

• For the subsequent 12 weeks, participants attended 1 bi-monthly × 2 h ‘booster’ sessions

Combination intervention (CI):

• PE, NI, and CT

• Outcome assessments were performed at baseline (T0), 3 months (T1), 6 months (T2), and 12 months (T3) by assessors who were blinded to the participants’ group allocation

• Frailty scores were reduced in all groups over 12 months

• CHS frailty index scores range from 0 to 5

• Compared with the control group, nutritional and cognition intervention were almost 3 times more likely of frailty reduction in the intervention group, 2.98 (1.10–8.07) (P < 0.01)

• Physical intervention was associated with 4 times higher odds of frailty reduction, 4.05 (1.50–10.8) (P < 0.01)

• Combination intervention was associated with the highest odds of frailty reduction, 5.00 (1.88–13.3) (P < 0.01)

• No cost-effectiveness analysis was reported