Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31375079›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2019

Development of an evaluation tool for geriatric rehabilitation care.

Meriam M Janssen, Willeke Vos, Katrien G Luijkx

Open access · goldAbstract read
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. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Role of Nursing Staff Regarding Goal Setting and Achieving in Geriatric Rehabilitation: A Focus Group Study.Rehabilitation nursing : the official journal of the Association of Rehabilitation Nurses
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Meriam M JanssenTranzo Department, Scientific Center for Care and Welfare, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000, LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands. m.janssen4@tilburguniversity.edu.
Willeke VosTranzo Department, Scientific Center for Care and Welfare, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000, LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Katrien G LuijkxTranzo Department, Scientific Center for Care and Welfare, Tilburg University, PO Box 90153, 5000, LE, Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Tilburg University · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeriatric rehabilitation care (GRC) is short-term and multidisciplinary rehabilitation care for older vulnerable clients. Studies were conducted about its effects. However, elements that influence the quality of GRC have not been studied previously.

methodsIn this study realist evaluation is used to find out which are the mechanisms and outcomes and which (groups of) persons are the context for GRC, according to GRC professionals. The mechanisms, outcomes and context of GRC were explored in three consecutive phases of qualitative data gathering, i.e. individual interviews, expert meeting, and focus groups.

resultsEight mechanisms - client centeredness, client satisfaction during rehabilitation, therapeutic climate, information provision to client and informal care givers, consultation about the rehabilitation (process), cooperation within the MultiDisciplinary Team (MDT), professionalism of GRC professionals, and organizational aspects - were found. Four context groups-the client, his family and/or informal care giver(s), the individual GRC professional, and the MDT-were mentioned by the respondents. Last, two outcome factors were determined, i.e. client satisfaction at discharge and rehabilitation goals accomplished.

conclusionsIn order to translate these insights into a practical tool that can be used by MDTs in the practice of GRC, identified mechanisms, contexts, and outcomes were visualized in a GRC evaluation tool. A graphic designer developed an interactive PDF which is the GRC evaluation tool. This tool may enable MDTs to discuss, prioritize, evaluate, and improve the quality of their GRC practice.

Indexed as

AgedFemaleGeriatric AssessmentHealth PersonnelHealth Services for the AgedHospitals, RehabilitationHumansMalePatient DischargePatient SatisfactionContextEvaluationGeriatric rehabilitation care (GRC)GRC evaluation toolMechanismsOutcomesQuality improvementRealist evaluation

Identifiers

PMID31375079
PMCPMC6679545
OpenAlexW2966552097

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.