Evidence mapPaperPMID 35737601Full record

SynthesisAge and ageing2022

The effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions including outdoor mobility on older adults' physical activity, endurance, outdoor mobility and falls-related self-efficacy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Olyvia Geohagen, Lydia Hamer, Alexandra Lowton, Stefanny Guerra, Rhian Milton-Cole, Pippa Ellery, Finbarr C Martin, Sallie E Lamb, Catherine Sackley, Katie J Sheehan

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Age and ageing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Olyvia GeohagenDepartment of Population Health Sciences, School of Population and Environmental Sciences, Kings College London, UK.
Lydia HamerDepartment of Population Health Sciences, School of Population and Environmental Sciences, Kings College London, UK.
Alexandra LowtonDepartment of Population Health Sciences, School of Population and Environmental Sciences, Kings College London, UK.
Stefanny GuerraDepartment of Population Health Sciences, School of Population and Environmental Sciences, Kings College London, UK.
Rhian Milton-ColeDepartment of Population Health Sciences, School of Population and Environmental Sciences, Kings College London, UK.
Pippa ElleryCornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust, UK.
Finbarr C MartinDepartment of Population Health Sciences, School of Population and Environmental Sciences, Kings College London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6911-3498
Sallie E LambInstitute of Health Research, University of Exeter, UK.
Catherine SackleyDepartment of Population Health Sciences, School of Population and Environmental Sciences, Kings College London, UK.
Katie J SheehanDepartment of Population Health Sciences, School of Population and Environmental Sciences, Kings College London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-5325-7454

Funding

Department of Health
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the effectiveness of community-based rehabilitation interventions which incorporate outdoor mobility on physical activity, endurance, outdoor mobility and falls-related self-efficacy in older adults.

designMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro and OpenGrey were searched systematically from inception to June 2021 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of community-based rehabilitation incorporating outdoor mobility on physical activity, endurance, outdoor mobility and/or falls-related self-efficacy in older adults. Duplicate screening, selection, extraction and appraisal were completed. Results were reported descriptively and with random-effects meta-analyses stratified by population (proactive [community-dwelling], reactive [illness/injury]).

resultsA total of 29 RCTs with 7,076 participants were identified (66% high bias for at least one domain). The outdoor mobility component was predominantly a walking programme with behaviour change. Rehabilitation for reactive populations increased physical activity (seven RCTs, 587 participants. Hedge's g 1.32, 95% CI: 0.31, 2.32), endurance (four RCTs, 392 participants. Hedges g 0.24; 95% CI: 0.04, 0.44) and outdoor mobility (two RCTs with 663 participants. Go out as much as wanted, likelihood of a journey) at intervention end versus usual care. Where reported, effects were preserved at follow-up. One RCT indicated a benefit of rehabilitation for proactive populations on moderate-to-vigorous activity and outdoor mobility. No effect was noted for falls-related self-efficacy, or other outcomes following rehabilitation for proactive populations.

conclusionReactive rehabilitation for older adults may include walking programmes with behaviour change techniques. Future research should address the potential benefit of a walking programme for proactive populations and address mobility-related anxiety as a barrier to outdoor mobility for both proactive and reactive populations.

Indexed as

ExerciseIndependent LivingAgedAnxietyHumansNutritional StatusWalkingolder peopleoutdoor mobilityphysical activityrehabilitationsocialsystematic reviewwalking

Identifiers

PMID35737601
PMCPMC9220027

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.