Legg Lynn, Gladman John, Drummond Avril, Davidson Alex
The Department of Biomedical Engineering, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Clin Rehabil. 2016 Aug;30(8):741-9. doi: 10.1177/0269215515603220. Epub 2015 Sep 15.
To determine whether publically funded 'reablement services' have any effect on patient health or use of services.
Systematic review of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies in which reablement interventions were compared with no care or usual care in people referred to public-funded personal care services. Data sources included: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EPOC register of studies, trials registers, Medline, EMBASE, and CINHAL. Searches were from 2000 up to end February 2015.
Not applicable.
Investigators' definition of the target population for reablement interventions.
Use of publically funded personal care services and dependence in personal activities of daily living.
We found no studies fulfilling our inclusion criteria that assessed the effectiveness of reablement interventions. We did note the lack of an agreed understanding of the nature of reablement.
Reablement is an ill-defined intervention targeted towards an ill-defined and potentially highly heterogeneous population/patient group. There is no evidence to suggest it is effective at either of its goals; increasing personal independence or reducing use of personal care services.
确定公共资助的“恢复性服务”对患者健康或服务使用是否有任何影响。
对随机对照试验和非随机研究进行系统评价,在这些研究中,将恢复性干预措施与转介至公共资助个人护理服务的人群中不接受护理或常规护理的情况进行比较。数据来源包括:Cochrane对照试验中央注册库、EPOC研究注册库、试验注册库、Medline、EMBASE和CINHAL。检索时间为2000年至2015年2月底。
不适用。
研究者对恢复性干预目标人群的定义。
公共资助个人护理服务的使用情况以及日常生活活动中的依赖性。
我们未找到符合纳入标准的评估恢复性干预有效性的研究。我们确实注意到对恢复性的性质缺乏一致的理解。
恢复性是一种定义不明确的干预措施,针对的是定义不明确且可能高度异质的人群/患者群体。没有证据表明它在实现其任何一个目标方面有效;增加个人独立性或减少个人护理服务的使用。