To determine whether publically funded ‘reablement services’ have any effect on patient health or use of services.
Design:
Systematic review of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies in which reablement interventions were compared with no care or usual care in people referred to public-funded personal care services. Data sources included: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EPOC register of studies, trials registers, Medline, EMBASE, and CINHAL. Searches were from 2000 up to end February 2015.
Setting:
Not applicable.
Participants:
Investigators’ definition of the target population for reablement interventions.
Main outcome measures:
Use of publically funded personal care services and dependence in personal activities of daily living.
Results:
We found no studies fulfilling our inclusion criteria that assessed the effectiveness of reablement interventions. We did note the lack of an agreed understanding of the nature of reablement.
Conclusions:
Reablement is an ill-defined intervention targeted towards an ill-defined and potentially highly heterogeneous population/patient group. There is no evidence to suggest it is effective at either of its goals; increasing personal independence or reducing use of personal care services.
Department of Health. Modernising social services: Promoting independence, improving protection, raising standards. London: The Stationary Office, 1998.
2.
JoffeJLipseyD.‘Note of dissent’, in Royal Commission on long term care, with respect to old age: Long term care - rights and responsibilities. London: The Stationary Office, 1999.
3.
YoungJ. Rehabilitation and older people. BMJ1996; 313(7058): 677–681.
4.
GershonSir Peter. Releasing resources to the front line: Independent review of public sector efficiency. London: The Stationary Office, 2004.
5.
Department of Health. Homecare re-ablement. Efficiency delivery: supporting sustainable transformation. London: Department of Health, 2007.
6.
Care Services Efficiency Delivery (CSED) Programme. Homecare re-ablement workstream, discussion document HRA 002. London: Department of Health, 2007.
LeggLGladmanJDrummondADavidsonARobertsonC. Reablement for adults referred to home care services. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews, University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2014.
10.
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). Evidence search health and social care, 2015. Available at: http://www.evidence.nhs.uk/
11.
Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.2.Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2012.
12.
PeetS. An evaluation of admission avoidance, early discharge and community reablement schemes in Leicester City, Leicestershire and Rutland: Final report, 2014.
13.
BakerDIGottschalkMEngCWeberSTinettiME. The design and implementation of a restorative care model for home care. Gerontologist2001; 41(2): 257–263.
14.
BonnerCDYuHY. Home evaluation: An extension of comprehensive restorative care. Geriatrics1972; 27(12): 59–66.
ParsonsJGRousePRobinsonEMSheridanNConnollyMJ. Goal setting as a feature of homecare services for older people: Does it make a difference?Age Ageing2012; 41(1): 24–29.
17.
WalkerBLHarringtonSS. Results of a field test and follow-up study of a restorative care training program. Nurse Educ Today2013; 33(9): 1034–1039.
18.
ParsonsJGSheridanNRousePRobinsonEConnollyM. A randomized controlled trial to determine the effect of a model of restorative home care and social support among older people. Arch Phys Med Rehabil2013; 94(6): 1055–1022.
19.
Care Services Efficiency Delivery (CSED) Programme. Homecare re-ablement for people at different levels of need. London: Department of Health, 2009.
20.
GhatoraeH. Reablement in Glasgow. Quantitative and qualitative research. Glasgow: Glasgow City Council, 2013.
21.
GlendinningCJonesKBaxterK. Home care re-ablement services: Investigating the longer-term inpacts (prospective longitudinal study). York: Social Policy Research Unit, University of York, 2010.
22.
ForderJJonesKCurtisL. Home care reablement services: Investigating the longer-term impacts. Outlines of a research project funded by the Department of Health.PSSRU: Personal Social Services Research Unit, 2009.
23.
JonesKBaxterKCurtisL. The short-term outcomes and costs of home care re-ablement services: Interim report, investigating the longer term impact of home care re-ablement services. York: Social Policy Research Unit, University of York, 2009.
24.
RabieePGlendinningC. The organisation and content of home care reablement services, research works 2010–01. York: Social Policy Research Unit, 2010.
25.
RabieePGlendinningCArkseyH. The organisation and content of home care re-ablement services: Interim report, investigating the longer term impact of home care re-ablement services. York: Social Policy Research Unit, University of York, 2009.
26.
McLeodBMairMand RP&M Associates Ltd. Evaluation of city of Edinburgh council home care re-ablement service. Edinburgh: Scottish Government Social Research, 2009.
27.
TinettiMECharpentierPGottschalkMBakerDI. Effect of a restorative model of posthospital home care on hospital readmissions. J Am Geriatr Soc2012; 60(8): 1521–1526.
28.
TinettiMEBakerDGalloWTNandaACharpentierPO’LearyJ. Evaluation of restorative care vs usual care for older adults receiving an acute episode of home care. JAMA2002; 287(16): 2098–2105.
29.
KentJPayneCStewartMUnellJ. External evaluation of the home care reablement pilot. Leicestershire County Council: Centre for Group Care and Community Care Studies, De Montfort University, 2000.
30.
RabieePGlendinningC. Organisation and delivery of home care re-ablement: What makes a difference?Health Soc Care Comm2011; 19(5): 495–503.
31.
GitlinLNWinterLDennisMPCorcoranMSchinfeldSHauckWW. A randomized controlled trial of a multicomponent home intervention to reduce functional difficulties in older adults. J Am Geriatric Soc2006; 54(5): 809–816.
32.
LewinGDe San MiguelKKnuimanMAlanJBoldyDHendrieD. A randomised controlled trial of the Home Independence Program, an Australian restorative home-care programme for older adults. Health Soc Care Comm2013; 21(1): 69–78.
33.
LewinGVandermeulenS. A non-randomised controlled trial of the Home Independence Program (HIP): An Australian restorative programme for older home-care clients. Health Soc Care Comm2010; 18(1): 91–99.
34.
SeniorHJParsonsMKerseN. Promoting independence in frail older people: A randomised controlled trial of a restorative care service in New Zealand. Age Ageing2014; 43: 418–424.
35.
GlendinningCNewbronner. The effectiveness of home care reablement; developing the evidence base. J Integrated Care2008; 16(4): 32–39.
36.
RyburnBWellsYForemanP. Enabling independence: Restorative approaches to home care provision for frail older adults. Health Soc Care Comm2009; 17(3): 225–234.
37.
NewbronnerLBaxterMChamberlainR. Research into the longer term effects/ impacts of re-ablement services, homecare re-ablement workstream. London: Care Services Efficiency Delivery Programme, 2007.
38.
NadashPFeldmanPH. The effectiveness of a “restorative” model of care for home care patients. Home Health C Nurse2003; 21(6): 421–423.
39.
KingAIParsonsMRobinsonEJorgensenD. Assessing the impact of a restorative home care service in New Zealand: A cluster randomised controlled trial. Health Soc Care Comm2012; 20(4): 365–374.
40.
WhiteheadP. Occupational therapy in homecare re-ablement services, 2014. [ISRCTN21710246]. Available at: http://wwwisrctncom/ISRCTN21710246 (accessed 26 June 2015).
41.
BurtonELewinGClemsonLBoldyD. Effectiveness of a lifestyle exercise program for older people receiving a restorative home care service: Study protocol for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res2013; 13: 419.
42.
JacobsenFF. A randomized controlled trial of home rehabilitation of older adults, 2012. [NCT02043262]. Available at: http://clinicaltrials gov/show/NCT02043262 (accessed 26 June 2015).
43.
JacobsenFF. The effectiveness of reablement in home dwelling adults, 2014. [NCT02273934]. Available at: http://clinicaltrials gov/show/NCT02273934 (accessed 26 June 2015).
44.
TuntlandHEspehaugBForlandODrange HoleAKjerstadEKjekenI. Reablement in community-dwelling adults: Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMC Geriatrics2014; 14: 139.
45.
Medical Research Council (MRC). Developing and evaluating complex interventions: New Guidance. London: Medical Research Council, 2015.
46.
NHS Benchmarking Network. National Audit of Intermmediate Care: Summary Report, 2014. NHS Benchmarking Network.
47.
ShepperdSDollHBroadJ. Hospital at home early discharge. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2009; 1: CD000356.
48.
ShepperdSDollHAngusRM. Hospital at home admission avoidance. Cochrane Database Syst Rev2008; 4: CD007491.
49.
YoungJGladmanJRFForsythDRHolditchC. The second national audit of intermediate care. Age Ageing2015; 44(2): 182–184.
50.
BlaseKFixsenD. Core intervention components: Identifying and operationalizing what makes programs work. ASPE Research Brief. Washington: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013.
51.
World Health Organization. World report on Disability, 2011. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
52.
HM Government Office for Disability Issues. Equality Act 2010 - Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the definition of disability. London: HM Government, 2011.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
