Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40438566›Full record

ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2025

Defining Reablement in the Dutch Context: A Modified Delphi Study.

Lise Elisabeth Buma, Ines Mouchaers, Sandra M G Zwakhalen, Stan Vluggen, Ton Satink, Silke F Metzelthin

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07772739 (Collaborative Reablement Service Model Implementation in Community-Based Settings), 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.

NCT07772739 completednot on this map

Collaborative Reablement Service Model Implementation in Community-Based Settings

TypeobservationalSponsorNational Taiwan UniversityRan2023 to 2023Enrolled160ConditionsReablementArmsindividualized reablement
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Mapping of Reablement Research - A Scoping Review of Reviews.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026
    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

6 authors.

Lise Elisabeth BumaDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-5377-0434
Ines MouchaersDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-7189-4468
Sandra M G ZwakhalenDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Stan VluggenDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.
Ton SatinkResearch Group Neurorehabilitation - Self-Regulation and Participation, HAN_University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Silke F MetzelthinDepartment of Health Services Research, Care and Public Health Research Institute, Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: For the past decade, the Netherlands has been developing and implementing reablement programs to promote independence and to empower older adults' autonomy. However, a key challenge remains the lack of clarity around the definition of reablement and its relations to usual care practices. Existing international definitions lack specificity to account for contextual differences, such as variations in healthcare systems and cultural norms. An operational definition is needed that not only fits the Dutch health and social care system and incorporates context-specific elements. This study extends the original conceptual definition by integrating these elements, offering clearer, more practical guidance for real-world application. Materials and methods: A modified Delphi study was performed to develop a definition of reablement that fits the Dutch health and social care system, extending beyond conceptual understanding. The study comprised three expert rounds and three Delphi survey rounds. Results: A total of 139 participants from Dutch health and social care, education, research, and representatives of clients and informal caregivers, participated. They evaluated statements in four sections: the target group, aims, type of care or support, and characteristics of reablement programs. Key discussions during the expert rounds focused mainly on 1) the target group, emphasizing the importance of involving individuals and their families, and 2) the characteristics of reablement, such as coordinating roles, team composition, and size. Input from the Delphi surveys and expert rounds led to the development of an operational definition for the Dutch context, agreed upon by 81% of stakeholders. Conclusion: The Delphi methodology proved valuable in identifying context-specific elements and incorporating expert perspectives, creating a culturally and contextually sensitive definition. This definition distinguishes itself from the international version by offering practical guidance on areas of application and interventions, with a focus on promoting social participation, well-being, and the involvement of the individual's social network.

Indexed as

goal-oriented caremultidisciplinary collaborationperson-centered carerestorative care

Identifiers

PMID40438566
PMCPMC12118488

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.