Table 3.
Functional outcome
| Study | ADL scale | Care model | FU (m) | ADL score of intervention group | ADL score of control group |
p value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bano et al. [34] |
Katz index 0 = fully dependent 6 = fully independent |
ICM | 6 |
Mean loss (SD) 1.1 (1.7) |
Mean loss (SD) 2.4 (2.2) |
< 0.001 |
| Deschodt et al. [27] |
Katz index 6 = fully independent 18 = fully dependent |
GCS |
4 12 |
Mean (SD) 10.0 (3.8) 9.8 (3.8) |
Mean (SD) 10.8 (3.9) 10.0 (3.4) |
0.19 0.34 |
| Prestmo et al. [21] |
Barthel index 0 = fully dependent 20 = fully independent |
GW |
1 4 12 |
Mean (SE) 14.53 (0.28) 16.31 (0.29) 16.46 (0.29) |
Mean (SE) 14.21 (0.29) 15.30 (0.29) 15.33 (0.30) |
0.43 0.013 0.007 |
| Watne et al. [22] |
Barthel index 0 = fully dependent 20 = fully independent |
GW |
4 12 |
Median (IQR) 17 (10–20) 17 (9.5–19) |
Median (IQR) 16 (12–20) 16 (11–19) |
0.80 0.44 |
| Naglie et al. [23] |
Modified Barthel index 0 = fully dependent 100 = fully independent |
ICM |
3 6 |
Mean (SD) 62.0 65.0 |
Mean (SD) 62.4 65.7 |
NS NS |
| Shyu et al. [18] |
Chinese Barthel index 0 = fully dependent 100 = fully independent |
GCS |
1 3 6 12 |
Mean (SD) 81.24 (15.49) 88.82 (13.37) 91.84 (11.41) 90.53 (18.40) |
Mean (SD) 72.92 (19.77) 79.93 (20.00) 84.08 (18.71) 84.36 (24.02) |
p value for ADL performance trajectory: 0.002 |
Bold values denote statistical significance at the p < 0.05 level
ADL activity of daily living, GW geriatric ward, GCS geriatric consultant service, ICM integrated care model, FU follow-up, SD standard deviation, IQR interquartile range, SE standard error, NA not assessed, m month