Effectiveness of physical rehabilitation on physical functioning and quality of life for long-term care residents with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of physical rehabilitation versus non-rehabilitation comparators on physical functioning and quality of life for long-term care (LTC) residents with dementia. Introduction: LTC residents living with dementia often have impaired physical functioning and quality of life. Physical rehabilitation can improve physical functioning and quality of life for individuals living with dementia; however, many LTC residents with dementia do not receive physical rehabilitation and providers are unsure what interventions to employ. A synthesis of studies examining physical rehabilitation will help guide practice in the LTC sector where most residents live with dementia. Previous syntheses have focused on all residents in LTC, specific professions, interventions, or people with dementia in the community. Our review focuses on LTC residents with dementia and a broader definition of physical rehabilitation. Inclusion criteria: This review includes studies that evaluate physical rehabilitation in comparison with non-rehabilitation controls among LTC residents with any severity of dementia. We included studies that measure the effect on activities of daily living, performance-based physical functioning, and self- or proxy-rated quality of life. Methods: Searches were conducted in APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PubMed (National Library of Medicine), Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane CENTRAL database with no date or language limitations. Two independent reviews assessed the studies against the inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers extracted data and conducted a quality assessment using a structured extraction form. Certainty of evidence was ascertained using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Where possible, studies were pooled in meta-analyses; otherwise, a narrative synthesis was performed. Results: Thirty-three studies were included (n = 3072 participants); 27 were randomized control trials and the remaining 6 were non-randomized trials. The overall risk of bias of the included studies was low to unclear. Many of the included studies focused on increasing activity or walking, while few were individually tailored or at an intensity appropriate to induce therapeutic effects on physical function. Physical function was also measured via several outcome measures, limiting our ability to pool results. There was low certainty evidence that physical rehabilitation improved activities of daily living (12 RCTs, 1348 participants, SMD 0.78; 95% CI 0.27 to 1.30) and the Short Physical Performance Battery Score (3 RCTs, 258 participants, MD 3.01 points; 95% CI 1.37 to 4.66) compared with non-rehabilitation interventions. There was low to moderate certainty evidence that physical rehabilitation demonstrated no change in the 30-Second Sit to Stand Test (2 RCTs, 293 participants, MD 0.79 repetitions; 95% CI –0.45 to 2.03), 6-Minute Walk Test (4 RCTs, 363 participants, MD 17.32 meters; 95% CI –29.41 to 64.05), gait speed (4 RCTs, 400 participants, MD 0.10 meters/seconds; 95% CI –0.02 to 0.22), Timed Up and Go Test (3 studies, 275 participants, MD –2.89 seconds; 95% CI –6.62 to 0.84), or quality of life (4 RCTs, 419 participants, SMD 0.20; 95% CI –0.08 to 0.47). Conclusions: This review demonstrates that physical rehabilitation may improve activities of daily living for LTC residents living with dementia, though the evidence is of low certainty. The effect of physical rehabilitation on specific functional tasks, like gait speed and quality of life, are less clear. Future research should examine the effects of individualized, progressive interventions on outcome measures that reflect the capacity and preferences of LTC residents with more advanced dementia. Review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022308444