Table 4.
Summary of effect on ADL performance/physical function (by study).
| Study reference | Measure used | Time point(s) | Effect | Sig |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feldman24 | Participant reports of difficulty. | LT | Change scores only reported. | |
| No difference between groups. | ||||
| Glendinning25 | List of ADL activities . | MT | No overall scale score. | |
| Higher percentage in intervention group gained the ability to: walk outside, bath or shower, dress and undress. | ||||
| Gottlieb26 | Client’s perceived difficulty in ADL. | MT | Change scores only – bathing and dressing. | |
| No differences between groups. | ||||
| Lewin28 | ADL scale based on Modified Barthel Index. | ST | Significant difference in mean change score (favours intervention) at 3 months z= -3.71, P< 0.001 and 12 months z= -2.90, P = 0.004, adjusted for baseline differences. | * |
| MT | ||||
| Lewin29 | ADL scale based on Modified Barthel Index. | ST | No significant difference between the intervention group (M= 11.87) and control group (M=12.65) at 3 months. | |
| MT | No significant differences between the intervention group (M= 12.11) and control group (M= 12.82) at 12 months. | |||
| Data were obtained from authors – SD not given. | ||||
| Marek30 | Five ADL items from minimum dataset for homecare used. | MT | No significant difference between the intervention group (M=1.8; SD= 4.3) and the control group (M= 0.4; SD= 1.3); P= 0.65, at 6 months. | * |
| Significant difference (favours intervention) between the intervention group (M= 2.1; SD= 4.7) and the control group (M= 3.3; SD= 4.7); P= 0.01, at 12 months. | ||||
| Tinetti35 | Self-care ADL score. | ST | Mean self-care score better (not significant) in intervention group (adjusted for baseline difference) t=-1.81, P= 0.07. | |
| Zingmark36 | ADL taxonomy. | ST | Of 19 ADL activities, seven showed significant improved in both groups and six activities in the intervention group only (walking inside, walking in neighbourhood, getting clothes from wardrobe, washing hair, combing hair, and manicuring). | |
| King27 | SF-36 physical component | MT | Change from baseline to 7 months favours intervention (not significant) | |
| 2.6 CI -1.5, 6.6 P= 0.22. | ||||
| Markle-Reid31 | SF-36 physical function | MT | Significant difference between the intervention group (M= 39.20; SD= 27.40) and the control group (M= 26.30; SD= 22.80); t=2.480, P= 0.015. | * |
| Markle-Reid32 | SF-36 physical function | MT | Difference in mean change score favours intervention (not significant) -5.39 | |
| CI -11.13, 0.35, P=0.065. | ||||
| Markle-Reid33 | SF-36 physical function | Difference in mean change score favoured intervention (not statistically significant but authors argued that this was clinically significant) 5.87 CI -3.98, 17.73, P=0.24. | ||
| Parsons34 | SF-36 physical component. | MT | Significant difference in inter-group change from baseline (I: 44.45 (3.52) to 54.04 (3.52) C: 52.08 (3.42) to 51.31 (3.42) P=0.0002). Linear mixed methods model used. | * |
SF-36: Short Form 36; ST: short-term, <6 months; MT: medium-term 6 to 12 months; LT: long-term > 12 months.
*
Significant.