Table 3.
A General Physical Activity Promoting Intervention Compared to Usual Care in Patients During the Hospital Stay | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Patient or Population: Patients During the Hospital Stay; Setting: Hospital Care; Intervention: A General Physical Activity Promoting Intervention; Comparison: Usual Care | |||||
Anticipated Absolute Effects * (95% CI) | |||||
Outcomes | Risk with Usual Care | Risk with a Mobility Program | Number of Participants (Studies) |
Certainty of Evidence (GRADE) |
Comments |
Reported falls | 5 per 126 | The number of reported falls in the intervention group was 0 per 122 (0 to 0), p = 0.06 ** |
248 (3 RCTs) |
⨁⨁⨁◯ MODERATE a |
A general physical activity promoting intervention probably results in a slight reduction in reported falls. |
ADL-activity performance assessed with: Functional Outcome Assessment, Barthel Index or Elderly Mobility Scale | The standardized mean ADL-activity performance was 8.0 (7.4 to 8.6) |
The standardized mean difference ADL-activity performance in the intervention group was 0.07 lower (−0.64 to 0.51) |
203 (3 RCTs) |
⨁⨁◯◯ LOW b,c |
The evidence is uncertain about the effect of a general physical activity promoting intervention on ADL-activity. |
Time spent standing and walking assessed with accelerometry | The weighted mean percentage time spent standing and walking was 4.8% (0.4 to 28.3%) |
The weighted mean percentage time spent standing and walking in the intervention group was 2.0% higher (−2.8% to 6.9%) |
141 (2 RCTs) |
⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW b,c,d |
The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of a general physical activity promoting intervention on time spent standing and walking. |
* The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). ** Calculated with Fisher’s exact test. Abbreviations, ADL: activities of daily living; CI: Confidence interval; IQR: interquartile range, RCTs: randomized controlled trials. Explanations: a The indirectness was probable as the outcome measures (reported falls) are surrogate outcomes for actual fall incidents; b The risk of bias was serious, as reflected by important study limitations such as the unknown psychometric quality of the measurement instruments, attrition of participants, and unknown deviations from interventions (see Risk of Bias-2 assessment); c The imprecision was serious, as reflected by high standard deviations around the estimated mean; d The inconsistency was serious as some results show opposite standardized mean differences.