ArticleHong Kong journal of occupational therapy : HKJOT2021
Differences of expected intervention effects between participant-led and facilitator-led preventive care services in Japan.
Article in Hong Kong journal of occupational therapy : HKJOT, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the effect of different management methods on the effectiveness of care preventive programmes for community-dwelling older adults.
methodsThis study comprised two facilitator-led (FL) and one participant-led (PL) preventive care classes in Japan. All participants received the intervention for approximately 12 weeks. Functional assessments, occupational dysfunctions, and subjective health were measured before and after the interventions. A two-way mixed design analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was adopted to examine the effect of the interventions, adjusted for previous experiences with preventive care services. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05.
resultsFourteen participants in the PL group (76.64 ± 6.48 years, 92.9% women) and 29 participants in the FL group (76.55 ± 5.75 years, 75.9% women) were included in the statistical analysis. ANCOVA showed significant group × time interaction effects in the Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test (FTSST), the Timed Up & Go (TUG), occupational deprivation of the Classification and Assessment of Occupational Dysfunction Scale, and self-rated health. Simple main effect tests showed that the TUG decreased significantly in the PL group, while occupational deprivation and self-rated health scores improved significantly. In contrast, FTSST scores significantly improved in the FL group.
conclusionPL-type management may be more appropriate for preventing social isolation and withdrawal, while FL-type management may be more appropriate for preventing physical frailty. Selecting not only adequate programmes but also an appropriate management type that matches the service purpose can help provide more effective care preventive services.
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.