Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40337082›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of occupational therapy2022

Exploring how occupational therapists and physiotherapists evaluate rehabilitation potential of older people in acute care.

Gemma Bradley, Katherine Baker, Catherine Bailey

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of occupational therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Review
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.

Gemma BradleyFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0031-964X
Katherine BakerFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Catherine BaileyFaculty of Health and Life Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Evaluations of rehabilitation potential are an everyday occurrence, yet the concept is poorly understood and there is a lack of understanding about the reasoning process. This study aimed to explore how occupational therapists and physiotherapists evaluated the rehabilitation potential of older people following an acute hospital admission. Method: Focused ethnography was utilised, primarily using observation, interviewing and review of records within one acute medical ward in a general hospital in the United Kingdom. Five patient participants gave consent for their episode of care to be studied, for interactions with professionals to be observed and for their clinical records to be reviewed. Three occupational therapists and two physiotherapists then participated in individual interviews. Findings: Thematic analysis of data led to the identification of a four-stage reasoning process. The four stages are as follows: gathering baseline information; provision of curative and supportive interventions; provision and monitoring of rehabilitative interventions; the evaluation of rehabilitation potential and decision about the subsequent pathway. Conclusions: The reasoning process illustrates the professional reasoning of occupational therapists and physiotherapists when evaluating rehabilitation potential for older adults in acute care. However, it also highlights vulnerabilities to professional reasoning which may contribute to subjectivity, inconsistency or risk to patients.

Indexed as

ethnographyolder peopleprofessional reasoningqualitative researchRehabilitation potential

Identifiers

PMID40337082
PMCPMC12033713

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.