Table 3.

Functional status/ADL, effect sizes and p values

Author	Design	SCU vs. n-SCU, n	Results	Assessment instrument	p value	Cohen's d (baseline)
Orfaly Cadigan [44]	longitudinal, controlled	141 vs. 31	– functional status	BANS-S [88]	0.0001	not available
De Rooij [10]	quasi-experimental, longitudinalc	51 vs. 51	– functional status	Barthel index [52]	not available	−0.58
		30 vs. 47				−0.53
Abrahamson [39]	random, cross-sectional	665 vs. 12,442	– functional level	MDS ADL [82]	0.433	0.03
Verbeek [12]	quasi-experimental, longitudinal, controlledc	124 vs. 135	– ADL	ADL-H [82]	n.s.	−0.13
Verbeek [11]	cross-sectional	586 vs. 183	– functional status	MDS [82]	n.s.	10.72
Weyerer [31]	cross-sectional, randomly selected, matched	594 vs. 573	– ADL	Barthel index	<0.05	−0.12
Te Boekhorst [13]	quasi-experimental, longitudinal, controlledc	67 vs. 97	– ADL	IDDD [89]	<0.01a	not available
Nobili [9]	longitudinal, comparative	72 vs. 72	– functional status	Barthel index	0.0005a	0.56
Pekkarinen [33]	cross-sectional, selection by characteristics	390 vs. 587	– assistance in ADL	MDS ADL	0.05	0.46
Ashcraft [27]	cross-sectional	15 vs. 15	– ADL	MDS ADL	not available	−0.30
Sloane [32]	cross-sectional, random	773 vs. 479	– ADL impairment	MDS ADL	0.001	−0.021
Reimer [14]	matched groups designd	62 vs. 59	– functional status	FAST [90]	0.016	not available
Luo [8]	cross-sectional	750 vs. 3,667	– ADL	no standardized instrumentb	>0.01	−5.70
Warren [38]	longitudinal, controlled	44 vs. 36	– physical status (ADL)	FAM + FIM [59]	not available	−2.30
Chappel [25]	experimental	total: 323	– physical functioning	MDS ADL	<0.01	0.176c
Leon [21]	experimental field study	432 vs. 164	– ADL limitations	MDS ADL	n.s.	0.07
Frisoni [34]	longitudinal, controlled	31 vs. 35	– function	Barthel index	not available	0.31
Saxton [15]	longitudinal, matched, controlledd	26 vs. 19	– total ADL	FIM	n.s.a	5.5
			– self-care		<0.05a	0.11
Phillips [45]	longitudinal, matched, controlled	1,228 vs. 5,904 vs. 70,205	– ADL function	MDS ADL	n.s.a	not available
Volicer [41]	prospective cohort study	50 vs. 112	– ADL	Katz ADL index [91	n.s.	0.01
Swanson [35]	quasi-experimental, pre-/post-tests	13 vs. 9	– functional ability Ib	FAC/ GRS [61]	n.s.*	0.45
			– functional ability IIb		n.s.*	0.03
Lindesay [28]	cross-sectionale	27 vs. 29	– dressing	ABRS [78]	not available	0.71
			– washing			1.02
			– feeding			0.36
			– toileting			0.41
			– mobility			0.32
Chafetz [46]	quasi-experimental, longitudinal	12 vs. 8	– ADL	Katz ADL index	n.s.a	not available
Holmes [20]	quasi-experimental	49 vs. 44	– ADL	Katz ADL index	n.s.b	0.15
Coleman [43]	experimental	47 vs. 36	– ADL functional level	Katz ADL index	<0.01	not available

MDS ADL = Morris scale; IDDD = Interview for the Deterioration of Daily Living Activities in Dementia; ADL-H = MDS; FAC = Functional Ability Checklist; GRS = Assessment Functioning of Geriatric Patients; ABRS = Adaptive Behaviour Rating Scale; BANS-S = Bedford Alzheimer's Nursing Severity-Subscale; n.s. = not significant.

^aOver time;

^bADLs dependence was measured by the degree of dependence in five ADL (transferring, eating, toileting, dressing, bathing);

^csmall-scale, homelike SCU/SCU comparison;

^dsmall-scale, homelike/n-SCU comparison;

^eSCU/n-SCU with mixed-sex population.