To investigate the effect of action observation therapy (AOT) in the rehabilitation of neurologic and musculoskeletal conditions. Searches were completed until July 2020 from the electronic databases Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (via OVID SP), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database. Randomized controlled trials comparing AOT with standard care were assessed. Musculoskeletal (amputee, orthopedic) and neurologic (dementia, cerebral palsy, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson disease, stroke) conditions were included. There were no age limitations. Articles had to be available in English. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full extracts of studies for eligibility and assessed the risk of bias of each study using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Data extraction included participant characteristics and intervention duration, frequency, and type. The effect of AOT in different outcome measures (OMs) was referenced in terms of body structures and functions, activities and participation, and environmental factors as outlined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF). Of the 3448 articles identified, 36 articles with 1405 patients met the inclusion criteria. Seven of the 11 meta-analyses revealed a significant effect of intervention, with results presented using the mean difference and 95% CI. A best evidence synthesis was used across all OMs. Strong evidence supports the use of AOT in the rehabilitation of individuals with stroke and Parkinson disease; moderate evidence supports AOT in the rehabilitation of populations with orthopedic and multiple sclerosis diagnoses. However, moderate evidence is provided for and against the effect of AOT in persons with Parkinson disease and cerebral palsy. This review suggests that AOT is advantageous in the rehabilitation of certain conditions in improving ICF domains. No conclusions can be drawn regarding treatment parameters because of the heterogeneity of the intervention. AOT has been considerably less explored in musculoskeletal conditions.

Introduction: Ensuring access for older people to Primary Health Care (PHC) is vital to achieve universal health coverage, improve health outcomes, and health-system performance. However, older people living in Low-and Middle-Income Countries (LMICs) face barriers constraining their timely access to appropriate care. This review aims to summarize the nature and breadth of literature examining older people’s experiences with access to PHC in LMICs, and access barriers and enablers. Methods: Guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, four databases [CINAHL, Cochrane, PubMed, and Embase] were systematically searched for all types of peer-reviewed articles published between 2002 and 2023, in any language but with English or French Gray literature presenting empirical data was also included by searching the United Nations, World Health Organization, and HelpAge websites. Data were independently screened and extracted. Results: Of 1165 identified records, 30 are included. Data were generated mostly in Brazil (50%) and through studies adopting quantitative designs (80%). Older people’s experiences varied across countries and were shaped by several access barriers and enablers classified according to the Patient-Centered Access to Healthcare framework, featuring the characteristics of the care delivery system at the supply side and older people’s attributes from the demand side. The review identifies that most access barriers and enablers pertain to the availability and accommodation dimension, followed by the appropriateness, affordability, acceptability, and approachability of services. Socio-economic level and need perception were the most reported characteristics that affected older people’s access to PHC. Conclusions: Older people’s experiences with PHC access varied according to local contexts, socioeconomic variables, and the provision of public or private health services. Results inform policymakers and PHC practitioners to generate policies and services that are evidence-based and responsive to older people’s needs. Identified knowledge gaps highlight the need for research to further understand older people’s access to PHC in different LMICs.