Background:Owing to demographic trends and increasing health care costs, quick discharge with geriatric rehabilitation at home is advised and recommended for older adults. Telerehabilitation has been identified as a promising tool to support rehabilitation at home. However, there is insufficient knowledge about how to implement a validated home telerehabilitation system in other contexts. One of the major challenges for rehabilitation professionals is transitioning to a blended work process in which human coaching is supplemented via digital care.Objective:The study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of the factors that influence the implementation of an evidence-based sensor monitoring intervention (SMI) for older adults by analyzing the perspectives of rehabilitation professionals working in 2 different health ecosystems and mapping SMI barriers and facilitators.Methods:We adopted a qualitative study design to conduct 2 focus groups, 1 in person in the Netherlands during winter of 2017 and 1 on the web via Zoom (Zoom Video Communications; owing to the COVID-19 pandemic) in Canada during winter of 2022, to explore rehabilitation providers’ perspectives about implementing SMI. Qualitative data obtained were analyzed using thematic analysis. Participants were a group of rehabilitation professionals in the Netherlands who have previously worked with the SMI and a group of rehabilitation professionals in the province of Manitoba (Canada) who have not previously worked with the SMI but who were introduced to the intervention through a 30-minute web-based presentation before the focus group.Results:The participants expressed different characteristics of the telerehabilitation intervention that contributed to making the intervention successful for at-home rehabilitation: focus on future participation goals, technology support provides the rehabilitation professionals with objective and additional insight into the daily functioning of the older adults at home, SMI can be used as a goal-setting tool, and SMI deepens their contact with older adults. The analysis showed facilitators of and barriers to the implementation of the telerehabilitation intervention. These included personal or client-related, therapist-related, and technology-related aspects.Conclusions:Rehabilitation professionals believed that telerehabilitation could be suitable for monitoring and supporting older adults’ rehabilitation at home. To better guide the implementation of telerehabilitation in the daily practice of rehabilitation professionals, the following steps are needed: ensuring that technology is feasible for communities with limited digital health literacy and cognitive impairments, developing instruction tools and guidelines, and training and coaching of rehabilitation professionals.
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: Although diagnosing and treating malnutrition, sarcopenia and underweight are recommended to be embedded and sustained within nutritional care, it is unknown if that is facilitated in geriatric rehabilitation. This study determined the proportion of geriatric rehabilitation inpatients with malnutrition, sarcopenia or underweight receiving dietetic interventions as part of routine clinical care and if these patients have greater improvements in body weight and composition compared to patients not receiving dietetic interventions.Methods: Geriatric rehabilitation inpatients from the observational REStORing health of acutely unwell adulTs (RESORT) cohort were included (n=971, median age 83.2 [77.7-88.8] years, 58.5% (n=568) females). Malnutrition, sarcopenia and underweight were defined by the Global Leadership Initiative of Malnutrition, European Working Group on Sarcopenia in Older People 2 and age-specific body mass index cut-offs. Data on dietetic interventions initiated by dietitians as part of clinical care was extracted from the centralised hospital database. Changes in body weight (kg), skeletal muscle mass (kg, %), and fat mass (kg, %) from admission to discharge were determined using linear mixed models.Results: Dietetic interventions were received by 306 (62.0%), 138 (71.5%) and 153 (76.9%) of patients with malnutrition (n=493), sarcopenia (n=193) and underweight (n=199). Duration and frequency of dietetic interventions were higher in patients with malnutrition, sarcopenia or underweight compared to patients without those conditions. There were no differences in body weight/composition changes in patients with malnutrition, sarcopenia or underweight receiving dietetic interventions compared to those not receiving interventions.Conclusions: One-third of geriatric rehabilitation inpatients with malnutrition, sarcopenia or underweight are not receiving dietetic interventions and therefore the referral and diagnostic process require improvements. Patients with malnutrition, sarcopenia or underweight receiving dietetic interventions had no greater improvements in body weight/composition compared to those who did not receive interventions. Tailoring dietetic interventions for malnutrition, sarcopenia and underweight diagnosis may improve patient outcomes.
MULTIFILE
