Kjernsholen Jeanette, Schou-Bredal Inger, Kaaresen Rolf, Soberg Helene Lundgaard, Sagen Aase
Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Viken, Norway.
Institute of Health and Society, Department of Nursing Science, University of Oslo, Oslo, Viken, Norway.
Arch Rehabil Res Clin Transl. 2023 Nov 20;6(1):100311. doi: 10.1016/j.arrct.2023.100311. eCollection 2024 Mar.
To investigate the effect of a reablement intervention (a person-centered, interdisciplinary rehabilitation approach) compared with usual care services in home-dwelling elderly experiencing functional declines in activities of daily living.
A non-randomized controlled trial comparing a reablement intervention with usual care; outcomes were measured at baseline, after intervention, and at a 6-month from baseline in both groups.
Municipal public health service.
Sixty-five home-dwelling elderly with functional decline were assigned by the participants home care service zone to a reablement group (n=35), or a usual care group (n=30). The mean participant age was 80±11 years in the reablement group and 78±12 in the usual care group.
The reablement group received a person-centered and tailored reablement program provided by an interdisciplinary team, consisting of a physiotherapist, an occupational therapist, and a nurse. The usual care group received standard home care services.
The dimension "Your health today" from the European Quality of Life-Visual Analog Scale (HRQOL), the patient-specific functional scale for goals in ADL (PSFS), the short physical performance battery (SPPB), and home care services in hours per week.
There were significant differences over time in favor of the reablement group with between-group effect sizes of Cohen h=0.36 (=.001) for HRQOL, h=0.60 (=.001) for PSFS, h=0.30 (=.001) for SPPB, and h=0.10 (.013) for hours of home care services per week. The within-group effect size for PSFS was h=0.15 (.010) in favor of the reablement group. The mean number of hours of home care services per week was mean 0.38±1.07 (=.001) in the reablement group and mean 30.38±64.13 (=.023) in the usual care group.
The participants in the reablement group achieved and maintained better physical function, a higher HRQOL and needed considerably less home care services than the usual care group participants. Thus, reablement appears to be a more beneficial and sustainable approach than the usual care services for the home-dwelling elderly with functional decline.
探讨与常规护理服务相比,康复干预(一种以患者为中心的跨学科康复方法)对居家日常生活功能出现衰退的老年人的影响。
一项非随机对照试验,比较康复干预与常规护理;在两组的基线、干预后以及基线后6个月测量结果。
市公共卫生服务机构。
65名居家日常生活功能衰退的老年人,根据其家庭护理服务区被分配到康复组(n = 35)或常规护理组(n = 30)。康复组参与者的平均年龄为80±11岁,常规护理组为78±12岁。
康复组接受由物理治疗师、职业治疗师和护士组成的跨学科团队提供的以患者为中心且量身定制的康复计划。常规护理组接受标准的家庭护理服务。
欧洲生活质量视觉模拟量表(HRQOL)中的“您今天的健康状况”维度、日常生活活动目标的患者特定功能量表(PSFS)、简短体能状况量表(SPPB)以及每周家庭护理服务时长。
随着时间推移,康复组有显著差异,组间效应量为:HRQOL的Cohen's h = 0.36(P =.001),PSFS的h = 0.60(P =.001),SPPB的h = 0.30(P =.001),每周家庭护理服务时长的h = 0.10(P =.013)。PSFS的组内效应量为h = 0.15(P =.010),有利于康复组。康复组每周家庭护理服务的平均时长为0.38±1.07(P =.001),常规护理组为30.38±64.13(P =.023)。
与常规护理组参与者相比,康复组参与者实现并维持了更好的身体功能、更高的健康相关生活质量,且所需的家庭护理服务显著更少。因此,对于居家日常生活功能衰退的老年人,康复干预似乎比常规护理服务更有益且更具可持续性。