Table 4.
Risk of bias assessment of included randomised controlled trials (n = 16) and clinical controlled trials (n = 4)
| RCTs | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | Q10 | Q11 | Q12 | Q13 | % yes | Riska |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Galik et al. (2014)b | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 54 | Moderate |
| Galik et al. (2015) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 38 | High |
| Gitlin et al. (2006)b | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 85 | Low |
| Gitlin et al. (2010)b | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 69 | Moderate |
| Resnick et al. (2011) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 38 | High |
| Szanton et al. (2019)b | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 77 | Low |
| Kerse et al. (2008) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 62 | Moderate |
| King et al. (2012) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 62 | Moderate |
| Parsons et al. (2017) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 62 | Moderate |
| Parsons et al. (2020) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 85 | Low |
| Lewin et al. (2013)b | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 46 | High |
| Powell et al. (2002)b | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 62 | Moderate |
| Sackley et al. (2009) | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 69 | Moderate |
| Gronstedt et al. (2013) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 69 | Moderate |
| Tuntland et al. (2015)b | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 85 | Low |
| Rooijackers et al. (2021) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 69 | Moderate |
| CCTs | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Q5 | Q6 | Q7 | Q8 | Q9 | % yes | Riska |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tinetti et al. (2002)b | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 44 | High |
| Lewin and Vandermeulen (2010)b | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 56 | Moderate |
| Langeland et al. (2019)b | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 56 | Moderate |
| Henskens et al. (2017) | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 56 | Moderate |
Note Risk of Bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Randomised Controlled Trials and the Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies (non-randomised experimental studies) (Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017a, b)
JBI Joanna Briggs Institute, RCT randomised controlled trial, CCT clinical controlled trial
aRisk of bias ranked as high when percentage up to 49%, moderate when percentage from 50 to 69%, and a low percentage of more than 70% of “yes” scores. 1 indicates yes, 0 indicates unclear or no
bStudy effective on improving ADL functioning