Caitlin McArthur, Niousha Alizadehsaravi, Rebecca Affoo, Karen Cooke, Natalie Douglas, Marie Earl, Trudy Flynn, Parisa Ghanouni, Susan Hunter, Michael Kalu, Laura Middleton, Elaine Moody, Cheryl Smith, Linda Verlinden, Lori Weeks
{"title":"物理康复对痴呆症长期护理居民的身体功能和生活质量的影响:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Caitlin McArthur, Niousha Alizadehsaravi, Rebecca Affoo, Karen Cooke, Natalie Douglas, Marie Earl, Trudy Flynn, Parisa Ghanouni, Susan Hunter, Michael Kalu, Laura Middleton, Elaine Moody, Cheryl Smith, Linda Verlinden, Lori Weeks","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00431","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of physical rehabilitation vs non-rehabilitation comparators for physical functioning and quality of life in long-term care (LTC) residents with dementia.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>LTC residents living with dementia often have impaired physical functioning and quality of life. Physical rehabilitation can improve physical functioning and quality of life for individuals living with dementia; however, many LTC residents with dementia do not receive physical rehabilitation and providers are unsure what interventions to employ. A synthesis of studies examining physical rehabilitation will help guide practice in the LTC sector where most residents live with dementia. Previous syntheses have focused on all residents in LTC, specific professions, interventions, or people with dementia in the community. Our review focused on LTC residents with dementia and used a broader definition of physical rehabilitation.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>This review included studies that evaluated physical rehabilitation in comparison with non-rehabilitation controls among LTC residents with any severity of dementia. We included experimental and quasi-experimental studies that measured the effect on activities of daily living, performance-based physical functioning, and self- or proxy-rated quality of life.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches were conducted in APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PubMed (National Library of Medicine), Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane CENTRAL database with no date or language limitations. Two independent reviewers assessed the studies against the inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers extracted data and conducted a methodological quality assessment using standardized checklists from JBI. Certainty of evidence was ascertained using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Where possible, studies were pooled in meta-analyses; otherwise, a narrative synthesis was presented.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-three studies were included (n=3072 participants); 27 were randomized controlled trials and (RCTs) the remaining 6 were non-randomized trials. The overall risk of bias of the included studies was low to unclear. Many of the included studies focused on increasing activity or walking, while few were individually tailored or at an intensity appropriate to induce therapeutic effects on physical function. Physical function was measured via several outcome measures, limiting our ability to pool results. There was low-certainty evidence that physical rehabilitation improved activities of daily living assessed with multiple instruments (12 RCTs, 1348 participants, standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.78; 95% CI 0.27 to 1.30) and lower extremity function assessed with the Short Physical Performance Battery Score (3 RCTs, 258 participants, mean difference [MD] 3.01 points; 95% CI 1.37 to 4.66), compared with non-rehabilitation interventions. There was very low- to moderate-certainty evidence that physical rehabilitation demonstrated no change in the 30-Second Sit to Stand Test (2 RCTs, 293 participants, MD 0.79 repetitions; 95% CI -0.45 to 2.03), 6-Minute Walk Test (4 RCTs, 363 participants, MD 17.32 meters; 95% CI -29.41 to 64.05), Timed Walk Test (4 RCTs, 400 participants, MD 0.10 meters/seconds; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.22), Timed Up and Go Test (3 RCTs, 275 participants, MD -2.89 seconds; 95% CI -6.62 to 0.84), or quality of life (4 RCTs, 419 participants, SMD 0.20; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.47).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review demonstrates that physical rehabilitation may improve activities of daily living for LTC residents living with dementia, although the evidence is of low certainty. The effect of physical rehabilitation on specific functional tasks, such as gait speed and quality of life, are less clear. Future research should examine the effects of individualized, progressive interventions on outcome measures that reflect the capacity and preferences of LTC residents with more advanced dementia.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42022308444.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"1460-1535"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11321609/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of physical rehabilitation for physical functioning and quality of life in long-term care residents with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Caitlin McArthur, Niousha Alizadehsaravi, Rebecca Affoo, Karen Cooke, Natalie Douglas, Marie Earl, Trudy Flynn, Parisa Ghanouni, Susan Hunter, Michael Kalu, Laura Middleton, Elaine Moody, Cheryl Smith, Linda Verlinden, Lori Weeks\",\"doi\":\"10.11124/JBIES-23-00431\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of physical rehabilitation vs non-rehabilitation comparators for physical functioning and quality of life in long-term care (LTC) residents with dementia.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>LTC residents living with dementia often have impaired physical functioning and quality of life. Physical rehabilitation can improve physical functioning and quality of life for individuals living with dementia; however, many LTC residents with dementia do not receive physical rehabilitation and providers are unsure what interventions to employ. A synthesis of studies examining physical rehabilitation will help guide practice in the LTC sector where most residents live with dementia. Previous syntheses have focused on all residents in LTC, specific professions, interventions, or people with dementia in the community. Our review focused on LTC residents with dementia and used a broader definition of physical rehabilitation.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>This review included studies that evaluated physical rehabilitation in comparison with non-rehabilitation controls among LTC residents with any severity of dementia. We included experimental and quasi-experimental studies that measured the effect on activities of daily living, performance-based physical functioning, and self- or proxy-rated quality of life.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Searches were conducted in APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PubMed (National Library of Medicine), Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane CENTRAL database with no date or language limitations. Two independent reviewers assessed the studies against the inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers extracted data and conducted a methodological quality assessment using standardized checklists from JBI. Certainty of evidence was ascertained using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Where possible, studies were pooled in meta-analyses; otherwise, a narrative synthesis was presented.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-three studies were included (n=3072 participants); 27 were randomized controlled trials and (RCTs) the remaining 6 were non-randomized trials. The overall risk of bias of the included studies was low to unclear. Many of the included studies focused on increasing activity or walking, while few were individually tailored or at an intensity appropriate to induce therapeutic effects on physical function. Physical function was measured via several outcome measures, limiting our ability to pool results. There was low-certainty evidence that physical rehabilitation improved activities of daily living assessed with multiple instruments (12 RCTs, 1348 participants, standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.78; 95% CI 0.27 to 1.30) and lower extremity function assessed with the Short Physical Performance Battery Score (3 RCTs, 258 participants, mean difference [MD] 3.01 points; 95% CI 1.37 to 4.66), compared with non-rehabilitation interventions. There was very low- to moderate-certainty evidence that physical rehabilitation demonstrated no change in the 30-Second Sit to Stand Test (2 RCTs, 293 participants, MD 0.79 repetitions; 95% CI -0.45 to 2.03), 6-Minute Walk Test (4 RCTs, 363 participants, MD 17.32 meters; 95% CI -29.41 to 64.05), Timed Walk Test (4 RCTs, 400 participants, MD 0.10 meters/seconds; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.22), Timed Up and Go Test (3 RCTs, 275 participants, MD -2.89 seconds; 95% CI -6.62 to 0.84), or quality of life (4 RCTs, 419 participants, SMD 0.20; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.47).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This review demonstrates that physical rehabilitation may improve activities of daily living for LTC residents living with dementia, although the evidence is of low certainty. The effect of physical rehabilitation on specific functional tasks, such as gait speed and quality of life, are less clear. Future research should examine the effects of individualized, progressive interventions on outcome measures that reflect the capacity and preferences of LTC residents with more advanced dementia.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42022308444.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36399,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JBI evidence synthesis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1460-1535\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11321609/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JBI evidence synthesis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-23-00431\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI evidence synthesis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-23-00431","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
研究目的本综述旨在评估物理康复与非康复比较对痴呆症长期护理(LTC)患者的身体功能和生活质量的影响:患有痴呆症的长期护理(LTC)患者的身体功能和生活质量通常会受到损害。身体康复可以改善痴呆症患者的身体功能和生活质量;然而,许多患有痴呆症的长期护理(LTC)患者并没有接受身体康复治疗,医疗服务提供者也不确定应该采取何种干预措施。对有关身体康复的研究进行综述,将有助于指导大多数居民患有痴呆症的长期护理行业的实践。以前的综述主要针对的是长期护理中心的所有居民、特定职业、干预措施或社区中的痴呆症患者。我们的综述侧重于患有痴呆症的长者照护中心居民,并对物理康复进行了更广泛的定义:本综述包括对患有任何严重程度痴呆症的 LTC 居民进行身体康复与非康复对照比较的评估研究。我们纳入了对日常生活活动、基于表现的身体功能以及自我或代理评定的生活质量的影响进行测量的研究:在 APA PsycINFO(EBSCOhost)、CINAHL(EBSCOhost)、PubMed(美国国立医学图书馆)、Embase、Scopus 和 Cochrane CENTRAL 数据库中进行检索,无日期或语言限制。两名独立审稿人根据纳入标准对研究进行了评估。两位独立审稿人使用结构化提取表提取数据并进行质量评估。采用建议、评估、发展和评价分级法(GRADE)确定证据的确定性。在可能的情况下,将研究集中进行荟萃分析;否则,进行叙述性综合分析:共纳入 33 项研究(n = 3072 名参与者),其中 27 项为随机对照试验,其余 6 项为非随机试验。纳入研究的总体偏倚风险为低至不明确。纳入的许多研究都侧重于增加活动量或步行,但很少有研究是针对个人情况或以适当的强度对身体功能产生治疗效果。身体功能也是通过几种结果测量来衡量的,这限制了我们汇总结果的能力。有低度确定性证据表明,与非康复干预相比,物理康复改善了日常生活活动(12 项 RCT,1348 名参与者,SMD 0.78;95% CI 0.27 至 1.30)和短期体能测试评分(3 项 RCT,258 名参与者,MD 3.01 分;95% CI 1.37 至 4.66)。有低到中度确定性证据表明,物理康复在 30 秒坐立测试(2 项研究,293 名参与者,MD 0.79 次;95% CI -0.45 至 2.03)、6 分钟步行测试(4 项研究,363 名参与者,MD 17.32 米;95% CI -29.41至64.05)、步速(4项RCT,400名参与者,MD为0.10米/秒;95% CI为-0.02至0.22)、定时起立行走测试(3项研究,275名参与者,MD为-2.89秒;95% CI为-6.62至0.84)或生活质量(4项RCT,419名参与者,SMD为0.20;95% CI为-0.08至0.47):本综述表明,物理康复可改善痴呆症患者的日常生活活动,但证据的确定性较低。身体康复对特定功能任务(如步速和生活质量)的影响则不太明确。未来的研究应考察个性化、渐进式干预措施对反映晚期痴呆症患者能力和偏好的结果指标的影响:PREMCORD42022308444。
Effectiveness of physical rehabilitation for physical functioning and quality of life in long-term care residents with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Objective: The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of physical rehabilitation vs non-rehabilitation comparators for physical functioning and quality of life in long-term care (LTC) residents with dementia.
Introduction: LTC residents living with dementia often have impaired physical functioning and quality of life. Physical rehabilitation can improve physical functioning and quality of life for individuals living with dementia; however, many LTC residents with dementia do not receive physical rehabilitation and providers are unsure what interventions to employ. A synthesis of studies examining physical rehabilitation will help guide practice in the LTC sector where most residents live with dementia. Previous syntheses have focused on all residents in LTC, specific professions, interventions, or people with dementia in the community. Our review focused on LTC residents with dementia and used a broader definition of physical rehabilitation.
Inclusion criteria: This review included studies that evaluated physical rehabilitation in comparison with non-rehabilitation controls among LTC residents with any severity of dementia. We included experimental and quasi-experimental studies that measured the effect on activities of daily living, performance-based physical functioning, and self- or proxy-rated quality of life.
Methods: Searches were conducted in APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PubMed (National Library of Medicine), Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane CENTRAL database with no date or language limitations. Two independent reviewers assessed the studies against the inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers extracted data and conducted a methodological quality assessment using standardized checklists from JBI. Certainty of evidence was ascertained using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Where possible, studies were pooled in meta-analyses; otherwise, a narrative synthesis was presented.
Results: Thirty-three studies were included (n=3072 participants); 27 were randomized controlled trials and (RCTs) the remaining 6 were non-randomized trials. The overall risk of bias of the included studies was low to unclear. Many of the included studies focused on increasing activity or walking, while few were individually tailored or at an intensity appropriate to induce therapeutic effects on physical function. Physical function was measured via several outcome measures, limiting our ability to pool results. There was low-certainty evidence that physical rehabilitation improved activities of daily living assessed with multiple instruments (12 RCTs, 1348 participants, standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.78; 95% CI 0.27 to 1.30) and lower extremity function assessed with the Short Physical Performance Battery Score (3 RCTs, 258 participants, mean difference [MD] 3.01 points; 95% CI 1.37 to 4.66), compared with non-rehabilitation interventions. There was very low- to moderate-certainty evidence that physical rehabilitation demonstrated no change in the 30-Second Sit to Stand Test (2 RCTs, 293 participants, MD 0.79 repetitions; 95% CI -0.45 to 2.03), 6-Minute Walk Test (4 RCTs, 363 participants, MD 17.32 meters; 95% CI -29.41 to 64.05), Timed Walk Test (4 RCTs, 400 participants, MD 0.10 meters/seconds; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.22), Timed Up and Go Test (3 RCTs, 275 participants, MD -2.89 seconds; 95% CI -6.62 to 0.84), or quality of life (4 RCTs, 419 participants, SMD 0.20; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.47).
Conclusions: This review demonstrates that physical rehabilitation may improve activities of daily living for LTC residents living with dementia, although the evidence is of low certainty. The effect of physical rehabilitation on specific functional tasks, such as gait speed and quality of life, are less clear. Future research should examine the effects of individualized, progressive interventions on outcome measures that reflect the capacity and preferences of LTC residents with more advanced dementia.