General and Disease-Specific Health Indicator Changes Associated with Inpatient Rehabilitation

Abstract

ObjectivesRehabilitation plays a vital role in the mitigation and improvement of functional limitations associated with aging and chronic conditions. Moderating factors such as sex, age, the medical diagnosis, and rehabilitation timing for admission status, as well as the expected change related to inpatient rehabilitation, are examined to provide a valid basis for the routine assessment of the quality of medical outcomes. DesignAn observational study was carried out, placing a focus on general and disease-specific health measurements, to assess representative results of multidisciplinary inpatient rehabilitation. Aspects that were possibly confounding and introduced bias were controlled based on data from a quasi-experimental (waiting) control group. MeasuresExisting data or general health indicators were extracted from medical records. The indicators included blood pressure, resting heart rate, self-assessed health, and pain, as well as more disease-specific indicators of physical function and performance (eg, activities of daily living, walking tests, blood lipids). These are used to identify moderating factors related to health outcomes. Setting and ParticipantsA standardized collection of routine data from 16,966 patients [61.5 ± 12.5 years; 7871 (46%) women, 9095 (54%) men] with different medical diagnoses before and after rehabilitation were summarized using a descriptive evaluation in terms of a content and factor analysis. ResultsWithout rehabilitation, general health indicators did not improve independently and remained stable at best [odds ratio (OR) = 0.74], whereas disease-specific indicators improved noticeably after surgery (OR = 3.20). Inpatient rehabilitation was shown to reduce the risk factors associated with certain lifestyles, optimize organ function, and improve well-being in most patients (>70%; cutoff: z-difference >0.20), with a standardized mean difference (SMD) seen in overall medical quality outcome of −0.48 ± 0.37 [pre- vs post-rehabilitation: ηp2 = 0.622; dCohen = −1.22; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) −1.24 to −1.19]. The baseline medical values obtained at the beginning of rehabilitation were influenced by indication, age, and sex (all P < .001); however, these factors have less significant effects on improvements in general health indicators (ηp2 < 0.01). According to the disease-specific results, the greatest improvements were found in older patients (SMD for patients >60 vs ≤60 years: 95% CI 0.08–0.11) and during the early rehabilitation stage (ηp2 = 0.063). Conclusions and ImplicationsCompared with those who received no inpatient rehabilitation, patients who received rehabilitation showed greater improvements in 2 independent areas, general and disease-specific health measures, regardless of their diagnosis, age, and sex. Due to the study design and the use of a nonrandomized waiting group, causal conclusions must be drawn with caution. However, the comparability and stability of the presented results strongly support the validity of the observed improvements associated with inpatient rehabilitation.