This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Burch, S. Articles by Prevost, T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Burch, S. Articles by Prevost, T. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Disabilities Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The Huntingdon Day Hospital Trial: secondary outcome measures

Jenny Longbottom

Maggie McKay

Colin Borland

Hinchingbrooke Hospital, Huntingdon, UK

Toby Prevost

Centre for Applied Medical Statistics, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK

Objective: To compare day hospital to day centre rehabilitation using scales to measure mobility, activities of daily living and quality of life.

Design: Single blind randomized controlled trial with home assessments at baseline (twice), six weeks and three months.

Setting: Mainly rural health district. Day hospital and social services day centres in market towns.

Interventions: Day hospital treatment or day centre rehabilitation by a physiotherapist and two health support workers.

Main outcome measures: World Health Organization mobility scale scored with and without aid, Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale and Nottingham Health Profile.

Subjects: One hundred and five physically disabled older patients living at home referred for day hospital rehabilitation or maintenance before discharge from hospital (66) or referred as outpatients (39).

Results: At three months there were no statistically significant differences between rehabilitation at day hospital and day centre for any of the outcome measurements. However, there were significant improvements between baseline and three months for the following subscales [mean change per six-week period (95% confidence interval)]: WHO mobility subscale (with aid) – 0.67 (–0.99,–0.35); Nottingham Health Profile mobility subscale –10 (–15.5,–4.5) Nottingham extended ADL mobility subscale +3.08 (1.78,4.37); Nottingham extended ADL leisure subscale +1.66 (0.96,2.36).

Conclusion: There were no differences between day hospital and day centre in the outcomes measured. Day rehabilitation appeared to improve functional ability and mobility and scales reflecting these domains deserve further evaluation as outcome measures in this patient group. However, no improvement in quality of life was observed.

Clinical Rehabilitation, Vol. 14, No. 4, 447-453 (2000)
DOI: 10.1191/0269215500cr334oa


CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Hershkovitz, D. Gottlieb, Y. Beloosesky, and S. Brill Programme evaluation of a geriatric rehabilitation day hospital Clinical Rehabilitation, July 1, 2003; 17(7): 750 - 755. [Abstract] [PDF]