Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31368621›Full record

ArticleHealth & social care in the community2019

Outcomes of reablement and their measurement: Findings from an evaluation of English reablement services.

Bryony Beresford, Emese Mayhew, Ana Duarte, Rita Faria, Helen Weatherly, Rachel Mann, Gillian Parker, Fiona Aspinal, Mona Kanaan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health & social care in the community, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Publication Trends in Reablement - A Scoping Review.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Observational
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

9 authors.

Bryony BeresfordSocial Policy Research Unit, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-0716-2902
Emese MayhewSocial Policy Research Unit, University of York, York, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6024-8273
Ana DuarteCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Rita FariaCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Helen WeatherlyCentre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK.
Rachel MannSocial Policy Research Unit, University of York, York, UK.
Gillian ParkerSocial Policy Research Unit, University of York, York, UK.
Fiona AspinalSchool of Life & Medical Sciences, University College London, London, UK.
Mona KanaanDepartment of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK.

Funding

Department of Health HS&DR/13/01/17HS&DRNIHR
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reablement - or restorative care - is a central feature of many western governments' approaches to supporting and enabling older people to stay in their own homes and minimise demand for social care. Existing evidence supports this approach although further research is required to strengthen the certainty of conclusions being drawn. In countries where reablement has been rolled out nationally, an additional research priority - to develop an evidence base on models of delivery - is emerging. This paper reports a prospective cohort study of individuals referred to three English social care reablement services, each representing a different model of service delivery. Outcomes included healthcare- and social care-related quality of life, functioning, mental health and resource use (service costs, informal carer time, out-of-pocket costs). In contrast with the majority of other studies, self-report measures were the predominant source of outcomes and resource use data. Furthermore, no previous evaluation has used a global measure of mental health. Outcomes data were collected on entry to the service, discharge and 6 months post discharge. A number of challenges were encountered during the study and insufficient individuals were recruited in two research sites to allow a comparison of service models. Findings from descriptive analyses of outcomes align with previous studies and positive changes were observed across all outcome domains. Improvements observed at discharge were, for most, retained at 6 months follow-up. Patterns of change in functional ability point to the importance of assessing functioning in terms of basic and extended activities of daily living. Findings from the economic evaluation highlight the importance of collecting data on informal carer time and also demonstrate the viability of collecting resource use data direct from service users. The study demonstrates challenges, and value, of including self-report outcome and resource use measures in evaluations of reablement.

Indexed as

Activities of Daily LivingAgedAged, 80 and overCaregiversCommunity Health ServicesGovernment ProgramsHome Care ServicesHumansIndependent LivingProspective StudiesQuality of Lifeeconomic evaluationolder peopleoutcomesreablementsocial care

Identifiers

PMID31368621
PMCPMC6851672

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.