Backgroundthe efficacy and outcomes of geriatric rehabilitation (GR) have previously been investigated. However, a systematic synthesis of the aspects that are important to patients regarding the quality of GR does not exist.Objectivethe aim of this scoping review was to systematically synthesise the patients’ perspective on the quality of GR.Methodswe followed the Scoping Review framework and gathered literature including a qualitative study design from multiple databases. The inclusion criteria were: a qualitative study design; a geriatric population; that patients had participated in a geriatric rehabilitation programme and that geriatric rehabilitation was assessed by the patient. The results sections of the included studies were analysed using a thematic analysis approach.Resultstwenty articles were included in this review. The main themes identified were: (i) the need for information about the rehabilitation process, (ii) the need for telling one’s story, (iii) the need for support (physical, psychological, social and how to cope with limitations), (iv) the need for shared decision-making and autonomy, (v) the need for a stimulating rehabilitation environment and (vi) the need for rehabilitation at home.Conclusionin this study, we identified the aspects that determine the quality of rehabilitation from the patient’s perspective, which may lead to a more holistic perspective on the quality of GR.
MULTIFILE
Background: Geriatric rehabilitation positively influences health outcomes in older adults after acute events. Integrating mobile health (mHealth) technologies with geriatric rehabilitation may further improve outcomes by increasing therapy time and independence, potentially enhancing functional recovery. Previous reviews have highlighted positive outcomes but also the need for further investigation of populations receiving geriatric rehabilitation. Objective: Our main objective was to assess the effects of mHealth applications on the health status of older adults after acute events. A secondary objective was to examine the structure and process elements reported in these studies. Methods: Systematic review, including studies from 2010 to January 2024. Studies were eligible if they involved older adults’ post-acute care and used mHealth interventions, measured health outcomes and compared intervention and control groups. The adjusted Donabedian Structure-Process-Outcome (SPO) framework was used to present reported intervention processes and structures. Results: After initial and secondary screenings of the literature, a total of nine studies reporting 26 health outcomes were included. mHealth interventions ranged from mobile apps to wearables to web platforms. While most outcomes showed improvement in both the intervention and control groups, a majority favored the intervention groups. Reporting of integration into daily practice was minimal. Conclusion: While mHealth shows positive effects on health status in geriatric rehabilitation, the variability in outcomes and methodologies among studies, along with a generally high risk of bias, suggest cautious interpretation. Standardized measurement approaches and co-created interventions are needed to enhance successful uptake into blended care and keep geriatric rehabilitation accessible and affordable.
Background: Due to the increasing number of older people with multi-morbidity, the demand for outpatient geriatric rehabilitation (OGR) will also increase. Objective: To assess the effects of OGR on the primary outcome functional performance (FP) and secondary outcomes: length of in-patient stay, re-admission rate, patients’ and caregivers’ quality of life, mortality and cost-effectiveness. We also aim to describe the organisation and content of OGR. Methods: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Five databases were queried from inception to July 2022. We selected randomised controlled trials written in English, focusing on multidisciplinary interventions related to OGR, included participants aged ≥65 and reported one of the main outcomes. A meta-analysis was performed on FP, patients’ quality of life, length of stay and re-admissions. The structural, procedural and environmental aspects of OGR were systematically mapped. Results: We selected 24 studies involving 3,405 participants. The meta-analysis showed no significant effect on the primary outcome FP (activity). It demonstrated a significant effect of OGR on shortening length of in-patient stay (P = 0.03, MD = −2.41 days, 95%CI: [−4.61—0.22]). Frequently used elements of OGR are: inpatient start of OGR with an interdisciplinary rehabilitation team, close cooperation with primary care, an OGR coordinator, individual goal setting and education for both patient and caregiver. Conclusion: This review showed that OGR is as effective as usual care on FP activity. It shows low certainty of evidence for OGR being effective in reducing the length of inpatient stay. Further research is needed on the various frequently used elements of OGR
