Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27165345›Full record

ArticleHealth economics review2016

Reablement in community-dwelling older adults: a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside a randomized controlled trial.

Egil Kjerstad, Hanne Kristin Tuntland

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health economics review, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Publication Trends in Reablement - A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2023
    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

2 authors.

Egil KjerstadUni Research Rokkan Centre, P.O. Box 7810, Bergen, 5020, Norway. Egil.Kjerstad@uni.no.
Hanne Kristin TuntlandCentre for Care Research Western Norway and Department of Occupational Therapy, Physiotherapy and Radiography, Bergen University College, P.O. Box 7030, Bergen, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the face of a growing number of older adults in the population, policy-makers in high-income countries are seeking new ways to reduce the expected growth in long-term care expenditure. Research shows that disability is an important determinant of long-term care utilization. In this context, reablement has received increased attention. Reablement is a form of home-based rehabilitation, which focuses on improving independent functioning in daily activities perceived as important by the older adult.

objectiveTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of reablement.

methodsThe economic evaluation is based on data from a randomized controlled trial in which all participants were assessed at baseline and after 3 and 9 months. The intervention group participated in reablement, while the control group received usual care. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM) was used to measure self-perceived activity performance and satisfaction with performance. Cost data were based on daily registrations of usage of home-based care personnel during a period of 9 months.

resultsReablement was found to be more cost-effective than usual care. The assessments of performance and satisfaction regarding daily activities were significantly higher in the reablement group compared with the control group and this was achieved at lower cost. Importantly too, in the post-trial period, the intervention group requested significantly fewer home visits which were, on average, of significantly shorter duration compared with the control group. Expenditure on home visits was significantly lower for the reablement group.

conclusionsReablement is a more cost-effective intervention compared with usual care. Reablement has a potentially large effect on the demand for compensating home-based care services. Policy-makers should therefore consider implementing reablement on a larger scale.

Indexed as

Economic evaluationHome care servicesRandomized controlled trialRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID27165345
PMCPMC4864744

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.