Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30700255›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2019

A multicenter investigation of reablement in Norway: a clinical controlled trial.

E Langeland, H Tuntland, B Folkestad, O Førland, F F Jacobsen, I Kjeken

Registry-linked trialAbstract readControlled Clinical TrialMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02273934 (The Effectiveness of Reablement in Home Dwelling Adults. A Quasi Experimental Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT02273934 naunknown statusnot on this map

The Effectiveness of Reablement in Home Dwelling Adults. A Quasi Experimental Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorFrode F. JacobsenRan2014 to 2015Enrolled500ConditionsPhysical DisabilityArmsReablement, Standard treatment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

25 citing papers in PubMed.

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

6 authors.

E LangelandCentre for Care Research Western Norway, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O Box 7030, 5020, Bergen, Norway. eva.langeland@hvl.no.ORCID 0000-0003-3594-2877
H TuntlandCentre for Care Research Western Norway, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O Box 7030, 5020, Bergen, Norway.
B FolkestadCentre for Care Research Western Norway, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O Box 7030, 5020, Bergen, Norway.
O FørlandCentre for Care Research Western Norway, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O Box 7030, 5020, Bergen, Norway.
F F JacobsenCentre for Care Research Western Norway, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, P.O Box 7030, 5020, Bergen, Norway.
I KjekenNational Advisory Unit on Rehabilitation in Rheumatology, Diakonhjemmet Hospital, P.O. Box 23, Vinderen, 0319, Oslo, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundReablement is an emerging approach in rehabilitation services, but evidence for its efficacy is rather weak and inconsistent. The purpose of the present study is therefore to investigate the health effects of reablement in home-dwelling adults.

methodsA multicenter, clinical controlled trial involving 47 municipalities in Norway, with assessments at baseline, and after 10 weeks and at 6 and 12 months. The sample consisted of 707 persons that received a 4-10 week reablement program and 121 underwent treatment as usual. Primary outcomes were activity performance and satisfaction with performance measured by the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM, 1-10). Secondary outcomes included the Short Physical Performance Measure Battery (SPPB), the European Quality of Life Scale (EQ-5D-5 L), and the Sense of Coherence Questionnaire (SOC). Overall treatment effects were estimated with mixed-model repeated measures analyses.

resultsSignificant treatment effects in the rehabilitation group compared with the control group were found in COPM-Performance and COPM-Satisfaction scores at 10 weeks (mean differences between groups (MD), 1.61, 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.13, 2.10 and MD 1.47, CI 0.98, 1.97, respectively), and at 6 months (MD 1.42; CI 0.82,2.02 and MD 1.37; CI 0.77,1.98, respectively). There were also significant treatment effects in the SPPB-subscales for balance and walking after 6 months, in the total SPPB score and in the subscale for sit-to-stand after 12 months. In the EQ-5D-5 L assessment, significant treatment effects were found in the subscales for mobility, and for usual activities and health after 6 months. There was a significant difference in the SOC after six months.

conclusionReablement seems to be a more effective rehabilitation service for persons with functional decline than traditional home-based services after six months. After 12 months, the differences between the groups decreased.

trial registrationThe trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on October 24, 2014, (retrospectively registered) identifier: NCT02273934 .

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingAgedAged, 80 and overExercise TherapyFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayQuality of LifeRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesWalkingActivities of daily livingAdultsClinical controlled trialHome-care servicesReablementRehabilitation

Identifiers

PMID30700255
PMCPMC6354362

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.