Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.

Detailed Search Results

Effects of a home-based rehabilitation program in community-dwelling older people after discharge from hospital: a subgroup analysis of a randomized controlled trial [with consumer summary]
Katri Maria T, Laura AM, Erja P, Timo R, Sirkka K, Marja-Liisa K, Sarianna S, Riku N
Clinical Rehabilitation 2021 Sep;35(9):1257-1265
clinical trial
5/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: No; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed*

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether pre-admission community mobility explains the effects of a rehabilitation program on physical performance and activity in older adults recently discharged from hospital. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Home and community. PARTICIPANTS: Community-dwelling adults aged 60 years recovering from a lower limb or back injury, surgery or other disorder who were randomized to a rehabilitation (n = 59) or standard care control (n = 58) group. They were further classified into subgroups that were not planned a priori: (1) mild, (2) moderate, or (3) severe pre-admission restrictions in community mobility. INTERVENTIONS: The 6-month intervention consisted of a motivational interview, goal attainment process, guidance for safe walking, a progressive home exercise program, physical activity counselling, and standard care. MEASUREMENTS: Physical performance was measured with the Short Physical Performance Battery and physical activity with accelerometers and self-reports. Data were analysed by generalized estimating equation models with the interactions of intervention, time, and subgroup. RESULTS: Rehabilitation improved physical performance more in the intervention (n = 30) than in the control group (n = 28) among participants with moderate mobility restriction: score of the Short Physical Performance Battery was 4.4 +/- 2.3 and 4.2 +/- 2.2 at baseline, and 7.3 +/- 2.6 and 5.8 +/- 2.9 at 6 months in the intervention and control group, respectively (mean difference 1.6 points, 95% confidence interval 0.2 to 3.1). Rehabilitation did not increase accelerometer-based physical activity in the aforementioned subgroup and did not benefit those with either mild or severe mobility restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-admission mobility may determine the response to the largely counselling-based rehabilitation program.

Full text (sometimes free) may be available at these link(s):      help