Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
A randomized controlled trial of day hospital and day centre therapy |
Burch S, Longbottom J, McKay M, Borland C, Prevost T |
Clinical Rehabilitation 1999 Apr;13(2):105-112 |
clinical trial |
7/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: Yes; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: Yes; Adequate follow-up: No; 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* |
OBJECTIVE: To compare the outcome of day hospital to day centre rehabilitation. DESIGN: Single blind randomized controlled trial with home assessments at baseline (twice), six weeks and three months. SETTING: Mainly rural health district. Day hospital and social services day centres in market towns. SUBJECTS: One hundred and five physically disabled older patients living at home referred for day hospital rehabilitation or maintenance before discharge from hospital (66) or referred as outpatients (39). INTERVENTIONS: Day hospital treatment or day centre rehabilitation by a physiotherapist and two health support workers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Barthel Index, Philadelphia Geriatric Morale Scale and Caregiver Strain Index. RESULTS: More day centre (23/55) than day hospital patients (6/50) (p < 0.0011 withdrew from allocated treatment by choice or because of operational difficulties. Both groups improved significantly in functional ability and reduction of care-giver strain by three months but there was no significant difference between groups. The mean improvement in Barthel Index (standard error) for day hospital = +1.5 (0.41) (n = 34) and day centres = +1.5 (0.48) (n = 38). The mean difference (95% confidence interval) between day hospital and day centre was 0 (-1.28, +1.28). Likewise the mean Philadelphia Geriatric Morale Scale improvement for day hospital +1.8 (0.66) (n = 35) and day centres was +0.9 (0.63) (n = 38). The mean difference was -0.88 (-2.7, +0.95). The mean reduction in Caregiver Strain for day hospital was -1.45 (0.5) (n = 23) and day centre was -1.59 (0.47) (n = 27). The difference was -0.14 (1.52,+1.24). (These analyses are all on an intention-to-treat basis). CONCLUSION: Whilst the improvement in functional ability and care-giver strain was similar in both groups, day centre rehabilitation was less popular and had practical difficulties. If these difficulties can be overcome the model should be tested elsewhere.
|