ArticleBMC geriatrics2019
Development of an evaluation tool for geriatric rehabilitation care.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Experiencing geriatric rehabilitation through the older adult's eyes: a mixed methods evaluation study of a virtual reality intervention among healthcare professionals.Age and ageing · 2026Article
- "Treat people with human dignity": the perspective of older adults on the quality of geriatric rehabilitation.European geriatric medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- The quality of geriatric rehabilitation from the patients' perspective: a scoping review.Age and ageing · 2023Article
- The Academic Collaborative Center Older Adults: A Description of Co-Creation between Science, Care Practice and Education with the Aim to Contribute to Person-Centered Care for Older Adults.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- 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 NursesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.