Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Systematic scoping review of frameworks used to develop rehabilitation interventions for older adults
  1. Vicky Booth,
  2. Victoria Hood-Moore,
  3. Jennie E Hancox,
  4. Phillipa Logan,
  5. Katie R Robinson
  1. Division of Rehabilitation and Ageing, University of Nottingham School of Medicine, Nottingham, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Vicky Booth; Victoria.Booth{at}nottingham.ac.uk

Abstract

Objectives Rehabilitation interventions for older adults are complex as they involve a number of interacting components, have multiple outcomes of interest and are influenced by a number of contextual factors. The importance of rigorous intervention development prior to formal evaluation has been acknowledged and a number of frameworks have been developed. This review explored which frameworks have been used to guide the development of rehabilitation interventions for older adults.

Design Systematic scoping review.

Setting Studies were not limited for inclusion based on setting.

Participants Studies were included that featured older adults (>65 years of age).

Interventions Studies were included that reported the development of a rehabilitation intervention.

Primary and secondary outcome measures Data were extracted on study population, setting, type of intervention developed and frameworks used. The primary outcome of interest was the type of intervention development framework.

Results Thirty-five studies were included. There was a range of underlying medical conditions including mild cognitive impairment and dementia (n=5), cardiac (n=4), stroke (n=3), falls (n=3), hip fracture (n=2), diabetes (n=2), breast cancer (n=1), Parkinson’s disease (n=1), depression (n=1), chronic health problems (n=1), osteoarthritis (n=1), leg ulcer (n=1), neck pain (n=1) and foot problems (n=1). The intervention types being developed included multicomponent, support based, cognitive, physical activities, nursing led, falls prevention and occupational therapy led. Twelve studies (34%) did not report using a framework. Five frameworks were reported with the Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions being the most frequently cited (77%, n=17).

Conclusion At present, the MRC framework is the most popular for developing rehabilitation interventions for older adults. Many studies do not report using a framework. Further, specific guidance to assist this complex field of rehabilitation research is required.

  • older adults
  • rehabilitation
  • intervention development
  • rehabilitation medicine

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Contributors The original idea for the review was provided by KRR and VB. VB and KRR completed the electronic searches. VB, KRR, VH-M and JEH completed data extraction. KRR and VB drafted the paper. PL, JEH and VH-M edited the paper. All authors contributed to the final paper in intellectual content, design and writing.

  • Funding VB was supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care East Midlands (NIHR CLAHRC EM).

  • Disclaimer The views expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement Data can be accessed through correspondence with the lead author.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.