Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
|Occupational therapy and activity pacing with hospital-associated deconditioned older adults: a randomised controlled trial [with consumer summary]|
|Timmer AJ, Unsworth CA, Browne M|
|Disability and Rehabilitation 2019 Jan 17:Epub ahead of print|
|8/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: Yes; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*|
PURPOSE: To examine the efficacy of an occupational therapy activity pacing intervention with deconditioned older adults in rehabilitation. METHOD: Randomised, single-blind controlled trial of deconditioned older adults admitted for rehabilitation following treatment of an acute medical condition, allocated to intervention (n = 51, males = 14, mean age 80 (8)) or control (n = 49, males = 12, mean age 81 (7)) group. The intervention group received individual and group activity pacing education with practice and application of techniques to daily activities and the home environment, while the control group received a typical occupational therapy program, which included brief activity pacing education. Outcomes included participation in daily living skills, health status (including pain and fatigue symptoms), self-efficacy in daily activities and activity pacing techniques using the Australian Therapy Outcome Measures-Occupational Therapy (AusTOMs-OT), Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), Self-Efficacy Gauge and Activity Pacing Assessment. RESULTS: No differences in groups at admission. Comparison at discharge and three months post discharge using 2x2 mixed ANOVA demonstrated small differences in only one scale of the activity limitation domain of the AusTOMs-OT. No significant differences were found in other scales or domains of the AusTOMs-OT, nor secondary outcome measures. CONCLUSION: Activity pacing in addition to typical occupational therapy during inpatient rehabilitation did not demonstrate benefits to participants in the management of their daily activities on returning home post hospitalisation.