Susan L. Murphy; Update on Geriatric Research in Productive Aging. Am J Occup Ther 2011;65(2):197-206. doi: 10.5014/ajot.2011.000836.
Download citation file:
© 2017 American Occupational Therapy Association
The American Occupational Therapy Association’s Centennial VisionAmerican Occupational Therapy Association (2007) articulates the strategic goals for the profession to be science driven and evidence based in major practice areas. In the practice area of productive aging, a previous review of research published in the American Journal of Occupational Therapy (AJOTMurphy, 2010) found mostly basic research with far fewer effectiveness studies. The current review article is divided into two parts. Part 1 provides an update on the types of research published on productive aging in AJOT in the past 2 yr (2009–2010). Part 2 examines the range and scope of occupational therapy effectiveness research on productive aging published in a similar time frame in other occupational therapy journals and outside of the discipline.
Level I—systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and randomized controlled trials (RCTs)
Level II—two-group, nonrandomized studies (e.g., cohort, case control)
Level III—one-group, nonrandomized studies
Level IV—single-subject designs, descriptive studies, and case series
Level V—case reports and expert opinion.
No measure of long-term efficacy
Unequal rate of dropout (25% control participants vs. 6% LiFE group)
Potential contamination if control participants sought other programs
Small sample size
No ADL measures used
Lack of information provided on randomization procedure, how missing data were handled, and inclusion criteria such as how knee joint pain was defined or if there was an age criterion.
Lack of a usual-care group
Lack of information on randomization and how intent-to-treat analyses were conducted
Unclear whether participants with dementia have adequate insight to rate their ability to carry out tasks which may weaken the effect of tailoring
Generalizable only to people with mild to moderate dementia
Heterogeneous sample of disabled older adults; no control over whether comparison group sought assistive technology on their own; unblinded assessors
Lack of information on whether there were drop-outs and how missing data were handled.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.