A Scoping Review of Physical Rehabilitation in Long-Term Care: Interventions, Outcomes, Tools

Adoption of Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Robots in Long-Term Care Homes by Health Care Providers: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Long-term care (LTC) homes face the challenges of increasing care needs of residents and a shortage of health care providers. Literature suggests that artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled robots may solve such challenges and support person-centered care. There is a dearth of literature exploring the perspectives of health care providers, which are crucial to implementing AI-enabled robots.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aims to explore this scant body of literature to answer two questions: (1) what barriers do health care providers perceive in adopting AI-enabled robots in LTC homes? (2) What strategies can be taken to overcome these barriers to the adoption of AI-enabled robots in LTC homes?

METHODS

We are a team consisting of 3 researchers, 2 health care providers, 2 research trainees, and 1 older adult partner with diverse disciplines in nursing, social work, engineering, and medicine. Referring to the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology, our team searched databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, ProQuest, and Google Scholar) for peer-reviewed and gray literature, screened the literature, and extracted the data. We analyzed the data as a team. We compared our findings with the Person-Centered Practice Framework and Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to further our understanding of the findings.

RESULTS

This review includes 33 articles that met the inclusion criteria. We identified three barriers to AI-enabled robot adoption: (1) perceived technical complexity and limitation; (2) negative impact, doubted usefulness, and ethical concerns; and (3) resource limitations. Strategies to mitigate these barriers were also explored: (1) accommodate the various needs of residents and health care providers, (2) increase the understanding of the benefits of using robots, (3) review and overcome the safety issues, and (4) boost interest in the use of robots and provide training.

CONCLUSIONS

Previous literature suggested using AI-enabled robots to resolve the challenges of increasing care needs and staff shortages in LTC. Yet, our findings show that health care providers might not use robots because of different considerations. The implication is that the voices of health care providers need to be included in using robots.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-075278.

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.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022308444.

Resident-, family-, and staff-identified goals for rehabilitation of long-term care residents with dementia: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Long-term care (LTC) residents with dementia can benefit from rehabilitation to improve function and quality of life. However, specific goals for rehabilitation with this population are not always clear. The purpose of this study was to describe the goals for rehabilitation for LTC residents with dementia from the perspective of residents, family, and staff.

METHODS

This was a phenomenological qualitative study. LTC residents with moderate to severe dementia, family members, and staff were recruited from two LTC homes in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and field notes from observations with residents while they were being active within the home. Data were analyzed via the principles of thematic content analysis, mapped onto the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) Model, and reported by the participant group (i.e., residents, family, or staff).

RESULTS

The 15 participants were three female residents aged 82 to 98 years, seven predominantly (86%) female family members aged 56 to 74 years, and five staff members (two females, three males, aged 22 to 55 years) who were physiotherapists, a physiotherapy assistant, a healthcare aide, and a registered licenced practical nurse. Most identified goals fell within the activities and participation constructs of the ICF model and focused on maintaining or improving function, mobility, and quality of life. Specific themes included preventing falls, walking or locomoting, stair climbing, maintaining activities of daily living, engaging in enjoyable exercise, maintaining independence and human connections, keeping busy, leaving the home for activities, and participating in group activities.

CONCLUSIONS

Rehabilitation goals for LTC residents living with dementia often focus on quality of life and functional activities and participation in LTC and family activities and events. Function and quality of life are interrelated, whereby functional goals influence quality of life. While some goals focus on improvement in function, maintenance or prevention of decline were also key elements. Future work should ensure rehabilitation interventions are developed relative to individually identified goals, and interventional success is measured in relation to the goal.

Measuring the outcomes for aged care residents' participation in physical activity interventions: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

Lack of physical activity presents substantial health risks to older adults living in residential aged care facilities. The objective of this review was to examine the suitability of physical activity outcome measurement instruments among cognitively sound residents.

METHODS

Search terms were used to explore health, nursing and social science databases to identify applicable English-language research from January 2000 to July 2020.

RESULTS

Sixteen papers met the inclusion criteria. The findings show that a diverse range of outcome measurement instruments have been used to evaluate physical activity intervention effectiveness. Most were found not to be validated for use specifically with residential aged care populations.

CONCLUSIONS

A range of Outcome Measurement Instruments (OMI) appear to effectively measure physical activity intervention outcomes among residential aged care older adults. Results highlighted the need for greater rigour in study design and selection of valid and population-appropriate instruments for use with this population.

Quantifying Physical Resilience in Ageing Using Measurement Instruments: A Scoping Review

Purpose: The capacity to recover motor function with pathology or age-related decline is termed physical resilience. It is unknown what outcome domains are captured with existing measurement instruments. Thus, this scoping review aimed to identify measurement instruments for physical resilience, identify research gaps, and make recommendations for future research. Methods: Articles were included from the search when their subject matter included the term resilience in relation to the physical health of older adults. Data on physical resilience measurement instruments were extracted using the outcome domains: body function or structure, activity and participation, and societal impact. Results: The majority of the 33 included articles involved older adults with fractures, cardiac conditions, and cancer. Many measurement instruments quantified body function or structure, and some instruments captured activity and participation, and societal impact of physical resilience. Measurement instruments were pooled into 4 categories: psychological, physiological, motor function, and psychosocial scales. No studies combined all areas of measurement. Conclusions: A potential gap of a measurement instrument capturing social aspects of physical resilience was identified. Comprehensive measurement could identify which outcome domains could be targeted to foster resilience. This knowledge might be useful across many health disciplines and contribute to therapeutic decision-making and rehabilitation strategies.

How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions

BACKGROUND

Enhancing health equity is endorsed in the Sustainable Development Goals. The failure of systematic reviews to consider potential differences in effects across equity factors is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions.  OBJECTIVES: To explore what methods systematic reviewers use to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 26 February 2021: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Hein Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on 10 June 10 2021. We contacted authors and searched the reference lists of included studies to identify additional potentially relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities. We define health inequalities as unfair and avoidable differences across socially stratifying factors that limit opportunities for health. We operationalised this by assessing studies which evaluated differences in health across any component of the PROGRESS-Plus acronym, which stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender or sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital. "Plus" stands for other factors associated with discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation or vulnerability such as personal characteristics (e.g. age, disability), relationships that limit opportunities for health (e.g. children in a household with parents who smoke) or environmental situations which provide limited control of opportunities for health (e.g. school food environment).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-tested form. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews.  MAIN RESULTS: In total, 48,814 studies were identified and the titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. In this updated review, we identified an additional 124 methodological studies published in the 10 years since the first version of this review, which included 34 studies. Thus, 158 methodological studies met our criteria for inclusion. The methods used by these studies focused on evidence relevant to populations experiencing health inequity (108 out of 158 studies), assess subgroup analysis across PROGRESS-Plus (26 out of 158 studies), assess analysis of a gradient in effect across PROGRESS-Plus (2 out of 158 studies) or use a combination of subgroup analysis and focused approaches (20 out of 158 studies). The most common PROGRESS-Plus factors assessed were age (43 studies), socioeconomic status in 35 studies, low- and middle-income countries in 24 studies, gender or sex in 22 studies, race or ethnicity in 17 studies, and four studies assessed multiple factors across which health inequity may exist. Only 16 studies provided a definition of health inequity. Five methodological approaches to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (140 of 158 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (50 studies); 3) analytic approaches which assessed differential effects across one or more PROGRESS-Plus factors (16 studies); 4) applicability assessment (25 studies) and 5) stakeholder engagement (28 studies), which is a new finding in this update and examines the appraisal of whether relevant stakeholders with lived experience of health inequity were included in the design of systematic reviews or design and delivery of interventions. Reporting for both approaches (analytic and applicability) lacked transparency and was insufficiently detailed to enable the assessment of credibility.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for improvement in conceptual clarity about the definition of health equity, describing sufficient detail about analytic approaches (including subgroup analyses) and transparent reporting of judgments required for applicability assessments in order to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.

Rehabilitation of Falls in Parkinson's Disease: Self-Perception vs. Objective Measures of Fall Risk

Falls are an important cause of injury and increased hospital/long-term care facility stays and has been reported in 70% of people with Parkinson’s disease (PD), yet there is limited effectiveness of medications for reducing falls. As an adjunct, many exercise therapies succeed in objectively reducing the number of falls, but this may not translate to improved quality of life (QOL). Importantly, self-perceived fall risk has a greater influence on activities of daily living and QOL, making it important to evaluate in the rehabilitation of PD. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of a 10-week exercise intervention (PD SAFE × TM) on self-perceived (according to balance confidence measures) and objective measures of gait that are commonly linked to fall risk in PD. Participants (N = 44) with PD completed PD SAFE × TM. Pre-/post-assessment involved the Activities-specific Balance Confidence Scale (perception), objective falls characteristics (stride time, stride width, stride length, and stride variability), and symptom severity (Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale motor subsection III (UPDRS-III)) after participants were stratified into a mild (no-balance impairment) vs. severe (balance impairment) groups. Overall disease severity (F (1, 43) = 8.75, p < 0.003) and all objective fall parameters improved (p < 0.05) in both groups, yet self-perceived fall risk improved in only the severe PD group F (1, 43) = 9.86, p < 0.022. Given that self-perceived fall risk and objective fall risk both play a role in the quality of life, identifying strategies to improve both aspects may be important in improving the overall quality of life.

Physiotherapy in nursing homes. A qualitative study of physiotherapists' views and experiences

Background

There are distinct differences in the implementation of physiotherapeutic care in nursing homes. Both nationally and internationally staffing levels of physiotherapy differ significantly between and within nursing homes. Since legislation or guidelines that specify the parameters of physiotherapy required in nursing homes are lacking, it is unknown how physiotherapists currently estimate the usefulness and necessity of physiotherapy in individual situations in long-term care. The purpose of this study was to describe how physiotherapists actually work, and how they want to work, in daily practice in Dutch nursing homes.

Methods

We performed a qualitative study with an online questionnaire. We asked 72 physiotherapists working in Dutch nursing homes to describe as accurately as possible usual care in nine different cases in long-term care. Furthermore we asked them to describe their role in the prevention and treatment of a number of indicators that measure the quality of care in nursing homes. Two reviewers thematically analysed the answers to the questionnaires.

Results

Forty-six physiotherapists returned the questionnaire. Physiotherapy services include active exercise therapy aimed to improve mobility and movement dysfunctions, advising on prevention and management of falls, pressure ulcers, incontinence, malnutrition and sarcopenia, overweight, physical restraints, intertrigo, chronic wounds, behavioural and psychological symptoms in dementia, and physical inactivity, and ergonomic and behavioural training. The way and extent in which physiotherapists are involved in the various care- and functional problems differs and depends on organisational and personal factors such as, organisation’s policy, type of ward, time pressure, staffing level, collaboration with other members of the multidisciplinary team, or lack of knowledge.

Conclusion

Physiotherapists in nursing homes are involved in the prevention and management of different care situations and functional problems. The way in which they are involved differs between physiotherapist. Aiming for more uniformity seems necessary. A shared vision can help physiotherapists to work more consistently and will strengthen their position in nursing homes.

Revisiones Sistemáticas Exploratorias como metodología para la síntesis del conocimiento científico

Introducción: En la actualidad los sistemas de salud alrededor del mundo apuestan por una toma decisiones clínicas basadas en la evidencia científica. Para ello, es necesario que los profesionales de la salud consulten los resultados de las investigaciones científicas. Sin embargo, dada la gran cantidad de literatura, los investigadores han desarrollado metodologías de revisión para compilar los estudios científicos dentro de un área específica. Aun cuando existen más de 10 tipos de metodologías para la revisión de la literatura, la Revisión Sistemática Exploratoria (RSE) ha recibido poca atención en la literatura sobre métodos de investigación científica de habla hispana. Objetivo: Detallar la metodología de la RSE, sus propósitos y las fases para su desarrollo. Desarrollo: Este trabajo detalla las generalidades de la RSE basándose en la metodología propuesta por Arksey & O’Malley. Así mismo, se describen las áreas o ámbitos donde este tipo de revisión se puede emplear, las fases para desarrollar la revisión y ejemplos de las RSE. Conclusiones: Las RSE tienen la fortaleza de hacer saber a los profesionales de la salud sobre un tema en específico que permita incidir en las políticas públicas. Al igual que las Revisiones Sistemáticas, las RSE utilizan una metodología clara y replicable, aportando datos confiables y científicos para los profesionales de la salud.