Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26755206›Full record

SynthesisBMC geriatrics2016

Factors influencing home discharge after inpatient rehabilitation of older patients: a systematic review.

Irma H J Everink, Jolanda C M van Haastregt, Sofie J M van Hoof, Jos M G A Schols, Gertrudis I J M Kempen

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC geriatrics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
8.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 110 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Economic burden of stroke: a systematic review on post-stroke care.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2019
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Irma H J EverinkDepartment of Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences and CAHPRI School for Public Health and Primary care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. i.everink@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Jolanda C M van HaastregtDepartment of Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences and CAHPRI School for Public Health and Primary care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. j.vanhaastregt@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Sofie J M van HoofDepartment of Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences and CAHPRI School for Public Health and Primary care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. s.vanhoof@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Jos M G A ScholsDepartment of Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences and CAHPRI School for Public Health and Primary care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. jos.schols@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Gertrudis I J M KempenDepartment of Health Services Research, Faculty of Health, Medicine and Life Sciences and CAHPRI School for Public Health and Primary care, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. g.kempen@maastrichtuniversity.nl.
Maastricht University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough rehabilitation for older patients has the potential to improve function and prevent admission to nursing homes, returning home after discharge is not possible for all patients. Better understanding of patient factors related to discharge home may lead to more realistic rehabilitation goals, more targeted rehabilitation interventions and better preparation of both patient and informal caregiver for discharge. Various studies provided insight into factors related to home discharge after stroke rehabilitation, but we still lack insight into factors related to home discharge in non-stroke patients. Therefore, the aim of this review is to provide an overview of factors influencing home discharge in older non-stroke patients admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation unit.

methodsA systematic literature search was executed in the databases PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science to retrieve articles published between January 2000 and October 2015. The search focused on factors related to home discharge after rehabilitation for older patients. Studies were included if home discharge after rehabilitation was assessed as an outcome measure and if the non-stroke population was, on average, 65 years or older and admitted to an inpatient rehabilitation unit.

resultsEighteen studies were included. The methodological quality was moderate to good in 15 studies. The factors significantly associated with home discharge are younger age, non-white ethnicity, being married, better functional and cognitive status, and the absence of depression.

conclusionsBecause various factors are significantly associated with home discharge of older non-stroke patients after rehabilitation, we recommend assessing these factors at admission to the rehabilitation unit. Further research into the factors that lack sufficient evidence concerning their association with home discharge is recommended.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingCognitionInpatientsAgedAge FactorsDepressionGeriatric AssessmentHospitalizationHumansMarital StatusPatient DischargePrognosisStroke Rehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID26755206
PMCPMC4709872
OpenAlexW2236179577

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.