Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31684916›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2019

Effects of applying a standardized assessment and evaluation protocol in housing adaptation implementation - results from a quasi-experimental study.

A Malmgren Fänge, G Carlsson, A Axmon, B Thordardottir, C Chiatti, M H Nilsson, L Ekstam

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

Article in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01960582 (Housing Adaptations and Mobility Devices - Evaluation of a New Practice Strategy), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

NCT01960582 nacompletednot on this map

Housing Adaptations and Mobility Devices - Evaluation of a New Practice Strategy

TypeinterventionalSponsorLund UniversityRan2013 to 2020Enrolled340ConditionsActivities of Daily Living, Cost Effectiveness, HousingArmsNew Practice Strategy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors.

A Malmgren FängeDepartment of Health Sciences, Lund University, SE-221 00, Lund, Sweden. Agneta.malmgren_fange@med.lu.se.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3165-1856
G CarlssonDepartment of Health Sciences, Lund University, SE-221 00, Lund, Sweden.
A AxmonDivision of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, EPI@LUND (Epidemiology, Population studies, and Infrastructures at Lund University), Lund University, SE-221 00, Lund, Sweden.
B ThordardottirFaculty of Health Sciences, OsloMet - OsloMetropolitan University, NO-0130, Oslo, Norway.
C ChiattiDepartment of Health Sciences, Lund University, SE-221 00, Lund, Sweden.
M H NilssonDepartment of Health Sciences, Lund University, SE-221 00, Lund, Sweden.
L EkstamDepartment of Health Sciences, Lund University, SE-221 00, Lund, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStandardized, research-based strategies to guide the implementation and evaluate the effects of housing adaptations (HA) on client outcomes are rare. We hypothesized that, compared to ordinary practice, a standardized assessment and evaluation protocol for HA implementation would better maintain or improve client outcomes over 1 year.

methodUsing a cluster design, South Swedish municipalities were recruited to an intervention or control group. Data on activities of daily living, usability of the home, health related quality of life, and participation frequency and satisfaction were collected at home visits 1 month before the HA (baseline; T1), and at 3 (T2), 6 (T3) and 12 (T4) months after. In the intervention group (n = 112) data were collected according to a standardized protocol while in the control group (n = 129) ordinary routines were applied. Changes from baseline to subsequent time points were categorized as no deterioration (i.e. improvement or no change) or deterioration, for each outcome item separately. Differences in "no deterioration" between the groups were assessed using logistic regression.

resultsLittle effect of using the standardized protocol was detected. For activities of daily living, statistically significant differences between the groups were found for toileting (T1-T4; OR 3.14), dressing (T1-T4; OR2.89) and cooking (T1-T3 and T1-T4; OR 3.14). For usability of the home differences were found in personal hygiene (T1-T2; OR 2.32) using a wheelchair (T1-T2 and T1-T3; OR 9.50), picking up the mail (T1-T3; OR 4.06), and in participation, helping others (T1-T3 and T1-T4; OR 2.33 and 3.36).

conclusionThe applied standardized protocol for HA implementation did not show any convincing effect, possibly due to the complexity of the intervention itself, and the implementation process. A process evaluation might generate in-depth knowledge about the reasons behind the findings.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov . NCT01960582.

Indexed as

Architectural AccessibilityHousingActivities of Daily LivingAgedAged, 80 and overCitiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPersonal SatisfactionQuality of LifeResearch DesignSwedenActivities of daily livingComplex interventionDisabilityEvaluationHealth related quality of lifeHome modificationOccupational therapyParticipationUsability

Identifiers

PMID31684916
PMCPMC6829845

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.