SynthesisSystematic reviews2012
Functional assessments used by occupational therapists with older adults at risk of activity and participation limitations: a systematic review and evaluation of measurement properties.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Leisure and Productivity in Older Adults with Cancer: A Systematic Review.Occupational therapy international · 2021Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Effects of reablement on home-dwelling older adults' physical functioning: a quasi-experimental study in primary healthcare.Aging clinical and experimental research · 2025Article
- Use of Standardized and Non-Standardized Tools for Measuring the Risk of Falls and Independence in Clinical Practice.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelled
backgroundOlder adults experience activity and participation limitations that are associated with ageing. Activity and participation limitations affect an older adult's ability to engage in meaningful daily activities and valued life roles. Occupational therapists provide interventions to reduce such limitations and monitor client change to ensure that interventions are effective. Client change should be measured through the use of valid and reliable assessments. Yet occupational therapists can favour the use of non-standardised assessments leading to inaccurate reflections of client change and difficulties in comparing the effectiveness of interventions. A number of reasons have been suggested as to why therapists may favour non-standardised assessments, including a lack of knowledge (of assessments and their properties) and lack of skill. METHODS/
designThis paper describes the systematic review protocol that will be used to identify functional assessments used in randomised trials of occupational therapy interventions for older adults (≥70 years of age). Interventions will focus on enhancing functional independence for either older adults transitioning from hospital to home, or community dwelling older adults. We will search Medline, EBSCO and OTseeker using a pre-determined search strategy to identify Functional assessments. These assessments will be recorded and, in phase two, their measurement properties analysed. DISCUSSION: This protocol provides a comprehensive guideline for conducting the proposed systematic review. The results of this systematic review will provide a thorough and unbiased identification and evaluation of measurement properties of functional assessment tools used in randomised trials to evaluate occupational therapy intervention. This information can be used to determine which assessment has superior measurement properties and will inform occupational therapy practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.