Table 2: Evidence summary - patients and SPH.

First author and year	Summary of study	Evidence
Owen et al. 2002 [6]	An intervention study comparing assistive patient handling devices with standard methods of patient handling (control) in a US hospital. Injury data and lost and restricted workdays following programme implementation were reviewed via use of data collection forms.	On a scale of 0-7 (extremely secure to extremely insecure), patients reported feeling more comfortable and secure when an assistive device was used - with a mean score for the experimental site of 0.1-1.1 and for the control site of 2.7-4.3; mean difference for all patient handling tasks was significant (p<0 .001).
Nelson et al. 2008 [4]	Pre- and post-implementation assessment of patient care quality in an ergonomics programme over 24 units of six US Veterans Administration nursing homes (N=111 residents).	No significant change was seen in most health outcome variables. Post-implementation improvement in patient physical functioning was seen, with improved urinary continence, lower fall risk, and improved daytime alertness and engagement in activities. Levels of depression were also lower post-implementation. Pressure ulcer incidence showed variable results, and differences were not statistically significant. No significant improvement was shown in mood or behaviour indicators, or cognition.
Arnold et al. 2012 [54]	A retrospective cohort study evaluating differences in functional outcomes in patients with stroke treated with SPH equipment and programme (Group 2), and without SPH equipment (Group 1) (N=94), in a US inpatient rehabilitation centre. The mobility elements of the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) assessment tool were used to perform a retrospective analysis of patient ratings.	Higher discharge mobility FIM ratings were seen in Group 2 patients compared with Group 1; both groups demonstrated significant improvements in FIM mobility ratings at discharge. The Group 2 patients improved more than the Group 1 patients in 4/5 FIM mobility categories. No significant effect was seen on length of stay.
Garg & Kapellusch 2012 [18]	Long-term effects of ergonomic programme implementation with patient handling device installation in six long-term care facilities and one chronic care hospital in the US, plus a control group. Injury data was collected for an average of 38.9 months pre-intervention and 51.2 months post-intervention.	The total lift and sit-stand lift were rated by patients as more comfortable (p≤0.007) and safe (p≤0.010); the majority of patients found the devices to be comfortable and safe.
Campo et al. 2013 [55]	A retrospective cohort study comparing intervention (n=784) and non-intervention (n=507) patient groups - occurring historically within the same rehabilitation unit of a US hospital at different time periods. Intervention consisted of a SPH programme.	Both groups had comparable admission mobility scores; no significant differences were found in discharge mobility scores between the two groups, except in the group that had high mobility on admission. These patients performed better with the SPH programme.
Gucer et al. 2013 [56]	Directors of nursing care (N=271) provided faculty information on powered mechanical lift availability and lifting policy. Data was linked by the authors to mobility-related resident outcomes from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Minimum Data Set Quality Indicators.	Four of six Quality Indicators improved with number of lifts, but were highest for sit-stand lift use. Facilities with the maximum number of lifts had a lower incidence of pressure ulcers compared with facilities with the fewest lifts (10% vs. 16%, respectively), and a lower number of bedfast residents (2% vs. 4%, respectively). Falls, however, were more frequent with increased lift use.