ArticleBMC health services research2026
Mapping multidomain assessment tools for home-visit nursing and rehabilitation: a scoping review.
Article in BMC health services research, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMultidomain assessment is essential for identifying the complex medical, functional, and psychosocial needs of older adults receiving home care. However, there remains a limited understanding of how existing assessment tools comprehensively address these needs across nursing and rehabilitation disciplines.
methodsWe conducted a date-unrestricted scoping review of PubMed, Scopus, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) to map assessment tools applicable to home nursing and rehabilitation practices, identifying eight studies published between 2004 and 2024.
resultsThe eight included studies employed diverse methodological designs, with each study using a distinct approach, and involved heterogeneous populations and multidomain assessment tools. These tools differed in their scope, conceptual foundations, and psychometric rigor. Most instruments consistently assessed the physical and medical domains, whereas psychosocial health, nutrition, caregiver burden, and patient-reported outcomes were infrequently incorporated. Only a subset of instruments reported evidence of reliability or validity, and the extent and rigor of this evidence varied considerably across studies.
conclusionsOverall, the findings highlight a fragmented assessment landscape in which existing tools provide valuable but incomplete support for interdisciplinary practices. There is a clear need for an integrated, evidence-informed, multidomain framework tailored to home-visit care to strengthen interdisciplinary communication, enable earlier detection of unmet needs, and enhance the quality of care for community-dwelling older adults. Future research should also address gaps in the availability of validated tools across different languages and cultural contexts.
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.