| Title |
Scoping review of physical rehabilitation interventions in long-term care: protocol for tools, models of delivery, outcomes and quality indicators
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMJ Open, June 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007528 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Caitlin McArthur, Jenna Gibbs, Alexandra Papaioannou, John Hirdes, James Milligan, Katherine Berg, Lora Giangregorio |
| Abstract |
A growing number of medically complex older adults reside in long-term care (LTC) and often require physical rehabilitation (PR). While PR is effective at maintaining or improving a patient's physical function, the breadth of PR interventions evaluated in LTC, which outcomes or quality indicators (QI) can be used to evaluate PR, and what tools or models can be used to determine eligibility for PR services remain unknown. A scoping review will be conducted to address the following research questions: (1) What types of PR have been evaluated for efficacy or effectiveness in LTC? (2) Which outcomes or QIs have been used when evaluating PR interventions in LTC, and how can this inform evaluation of PR using existing QIs in the Canadian context? (3) What tools or models exist or have been validated for decision-making in the allocation of PR resources in LTC? We will conduct a comprehensive literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and Occupational Therapy Systematic Evaluation of Evidence database (OTseeker) and a structured grey literature search. Two team members will screen articles and abstract the data. The results will be displayed according to the research question they address. Data abstracted regarding outcomes and QIs will be mapped onto existing, publicly reported QIs used in Ontario, Canada. The scoping review will synthesise the characteristics of PR interventions described in the literature, the outcomes used to evaluate them and tools to determine eligibility for services. The review will be the first step in formally identifying what outcomes and QIs have been used to evaluate PR in LTC, and will be used to inform a stakeholder consensus process exploring the same question. The scoping review may also identify knowledge gaps. The results will be disseminated via publication and presentation at conferences, in addition to a 1-day stakeholder meeting. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 7 | 64% |
| Unknown | 4 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 55% |
| Scientists | 5 | 45% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 94 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 1% |
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Canada | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 91 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 15 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 5% |
| Other | 23 | 24% |
| Unknown | 22 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 20 | 21% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 17% |
| Social Sciences | 7 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 3 | 3% |
| Other | 18 | 19% |
| Unknown | 27 | 29% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 November 2017.
All research outputs
#4,674,193
of 25,651,057 outputs
Outputs from BMJ Open
#8,415
of 25,844 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#54,338
of 280,551 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMJ Open
#109
of 295 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,651,057 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 25,844 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,551 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 295 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.