Dataset Information

Outcome measures in post-stroke arm rehabilitation trials: do existing measures capture outcomes that are important to stroke survivors, carers, and clinicians?

ABSTRACT:

Objective:

We sought to (1) identify the outcome measures currently used across stroke arm rehabilitation randomized trials, (2) identify and compare outcomes important to stroke survivors, carers and clinicians and (3) describe where existing research outcome measures capture outcomes that matter the most to stroke survivors, carers and clinicians and where there may be discrepancies.

Methods:

First, we systematically identified and extracted data on outcome measures used in trials within a Cochrane overview of arm rehabilitation interventions. Second, we conducted 16 focus groups with stroke survivors, carers and clinicians using nominal group technique, supplemented with eight semi-structured interviews, to identify these stakeholders' most important outcomes following post-stroke arm impairment. Finally, we described the constructs of each outcome measure and indicated where stakeholders' important outcomes were captured by each measure.

Results:

We extracted 144 outcome measures from 243 post-stroke arm rehabilitation trials. The Fugl-Meyer Assessment Upper Extremity section (used in 79/243 trials; 33%), Action Research Arm Test (56/243; 23%), and modified Ashworth Scale (53/243; 22%) were most frequently used. Stroke survivors ( n?=?43), carers ( n?=?10) and clinicians ( n?=?58) identified 66 unique, important outcomes related to arm impairment following stroke. Between one and three outcomes considered important by the stakeholders were captured by the three most commonly used assessments in research.

Conclusion:

Post-stroke arm rehabilitation research would benefit from a reduction in the number of outcome measures currently used, and better alignment between what is measured and what is important to stroke survivors, carers and clinicians.

SUBMITTER: Duncan Millar J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6429625 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Outcome measures in post-stroke arm rehabilitation trials: do existing measures capture outcomes that are important to stroke survivors, carers, and clinicians?

Duncan Millar Julie J van Wijck Frederike F Pollock Alex A Ali Myzoon M

Clinical rehabilitation 20190115 4

<h4>Objective:</h4>We sought to (1) identify the outcome measures currently used across stroke arm rehabilitation randomized trials, (2) identify and compare outcomes important to stroke survivors, carers and clinicians and (3) describe where existing research outcome measures capture outcomes that matter the most to stroke survivors, carers and clinicians and where there may be discrepancies.<h4>Methods:</h4>First, we systematically identified and extracted data on outcome measures used in tria ...[more]

PMID: 30646750

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInformal carers frequently suffer adverse consequences from caring. General practice teams are well positioned to support them. However, what carers of stroke survivors want and expect from general practice, and the practical support measures they might like, remain largely unexplored.The aims of this study are twofold. Firstly it explores both the support stroke carers would like from general practice and their reactions to the community based support proposed in the New Deal. Secondly, perceptions of a general practice team are investigated covering similar topics to carer interviews but from their perspective.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 stroke carers and 10 members of a general practice team. Carers' experiences and expectations of general practice and opinions of support measures from recent government policy were explored. General practice professionals were asked about their perceived role and their perceptions of carers' support needs. Interviews were content analysed.ResultsCarers' expectations of support from general practice were low and they neither received nor expected much support for themselves. General practice was seen as reactive primarily because of time constraints. Some carers would appreciate emotional support but others did not want additional services. Responses to recent policy initiatives were mixed with carers saying these might benefit other carers but not themselves.General practice professionals' opinions were broadly similar. They recognise carers' support needs but see their role as reactive, focussed on stroke survivors, rather than carers. Caring was recognised as challenging. Providing emotional support and referral were seen as important but identification of carers was considered difficult. Time constraints limit their support. Responses to recent policy initiatives were positive.ConclusionsCarers' expectations of support from general practice for themselves are low and teams are seen as reactive and time constrained. Both the carers and the general practice team participants emphasised the valuable role of general practice team in supporting stroke survivors. Research is needed to determine general practice teams' awareness and identification of carers and of the difficulties they encounter supporting stroke carers. Carer policy initiatives need greater specificity with greater attention to diversity in carer needs.

Project description:BackgroundAccess to rehabilitation to prevent disability and optimise function is recommended for patients with cancer, including following cancer diagnosis. Models to integrate rehabilitation within oncology services as cancer treatment commences are required, but must be informed by those they are intended to support. We aimed to identify views of patients, carers and clinicians to develop and refine a rehabilitation model to be tested in a feasibility trial for people newly diagnosed with lung cancer or mesothelioma.MethodsWe conducted a focus group study with people affected by lung cancer or mesothelioma, their carers and clinicians providing their care to identify priorities for rehabilitation in this period. We sought views on core intervention components, processes and outcomes and integration with oncology services. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsFifteen clinicians (oncologists, nurse specialists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists), nine patients and five carers participated. A proposed outline rehabilitation model was perceived as highly relevant for this population. Participants recommended prompt and brief rehabilitation input, delivered whilst people attend for hospital appointments or at home to maximise accessibility and acceptability. Participants recognised variation in need and all prioritised tailored support for symptom self-management, daily activities and the involvement of carers. Clinicians also prioritised achieving fitness for oncology treatment. Patients and carers prioritised a sensitive manner of approach, positivity and giving hope for the future. Participant's recommendations for outcome measurement related to confidence in usual daily activities, symptom control and oncology treatment completion rates over objective measures of cardiorespiratory fitness.ConclusionThe importance of providing tailored rehabilitation around the time of diagnosis for people with lung cancer or mesothelioma was affirmed by all participants. The refined model of rehabilitation recommended for testing in a feasibility trial is flexible, tailored and short-term. It aims to support people to self-manage symptoms, tolerate cancer treatments and to remain active and independent in daily life. It is delivered alongside scheduled hospital appointments or at home by an expert practitioner sensitive to the psycho-social sequelae that follow a diagnosis of thoracic cancer.

Project description:Neurologic music therapy in rehabilitation of stroke patients has been shown to be a promising supplement to the often strenuous conventional rehabilitation strategies. The aim of this study was threefold: (i) replicate results from a previous study with a sample from one clinic (henceforth called Site 1; N = 12) using an already established recording system, and (ii) conceptually replicate previous findings with a less costly hand-tracking system in Site 2 (N = 30), and (iii) compare both sub-studies' outcomes to estimate the efficiency of neurologic music therapy. Stroke patients in both sites were randomly assigned to treatment or control groups and received daily training of guided sequential upper limb movements additional to their standard stroke rehabilitation protocol. Treatment groups received sonification (i.e., changes in musical pitch) of their movements when they moved their affected hand up and down to reproduce a sequence of the first six notes of a C major scale. Controls received the same movement protocol, however, without auditory feedback. Sensors at the upper arm and the forearm (Xsens) or an optic sensor device (Leapmotion) allowed to measure kinematics of movements and movement smoothness. Behavioral measures pre and post intervention included the Fugl-Meyer assessment (FMA) and the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) and movement data. Bayesian regression did not show evidence supporting an additional effect of sonification on clinical mobility assessments. However, combined movement data from both sites showed slight improvements in movement smoothness for the treatment group, and an advantage for one of the two motion capturing systems. Exploratory analyses of EEG-EMG phase coherence during movement of the paretic arm in a subset of patients suggested increases in cortico-muscular phase coherence specifically in the ipsilesional hemisphere after sonification therapy, but not after standard rehabilitation therapy. Our findings show that musical sonification is a viable treatment supplement to current neurorehabilitation methods, with limited clinical benefits. However, given patients' enthusiasm during training and the low hardware price of one of the systems it may be considered as an add-on home-based neurorehabilitation therapy.

Project description:ObjectiveInvestigated clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a person-centred intervention for informal carers/caregivers of stroke survivors.DesignPragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) with economic and process evaluation.SettingClusters were services, from a UK voluntary sector specialist provider, delivering support primarily in the homes of stroke survivors and informal carers.ParticipantsAdult carers in participating clusters were referred to the study by cluster staff following initial support contact.InterventionsIntervention was the Carer Support Needs Assessment Tool for Stroke: a staff-facilitated, carer-led approach to help identify, prioritise and address the specific support needs of carers. It required at least one face-to-face support contact dedicated to carers, with reviews as required. Control was usual care, which included carer support (unstructured and variable).Outcome measuresParticipants provided study entry and self-reported outcome data by postal questionnaires, 3 and 6 months after first contact by cluster staff.Primary outcome3-month caregiver strain (Family Appraisal of Caregiving Questionnaire, FACQ).Secondary outcomesFACQ subscales of caregiver distress and positive appraisals of caregiving, mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and satisfaction with stroke services (Pound). The economic evaluation included self-reported healthcare utilisation, intervention costs and EQ-5D-5L.Randomisation and maskingClusters were recruited before randomisation to intervention or control, with stratification for size of service. Cluster staff could not be masked as training was required for participation. Carer research participants provided self-reported outcome data unaware of allocation; they consented to follow-up data collection only.ResultsBetween 1 February 2017 and 31 July 2018, 35 randomised clusters (18 intervention; 17 control) recruited 414 cRCT carers (208 intervention; 206 control). Study entry characteristics were well balanced.Primary outcome measureintention-to-treat analysis for 84% retained participants (175 intervention; 174 control) found mean (SD) FACQ carer strain at 3 months to be 3.11 (0.87) in the control group compared with 3.03 (0.90) in the intervention group, adjusted mean difference of -0.04 (95% CI -0.20 to 0.13). Secondary outcomes had similarly small differences and tight CIs. Sensitivity analyses suggested robust findings. Intervention fidelity was not achieved. Intervention-related group costs were marginally higher with no additional health benefit observed on EQ-5D-5L. No adverse events were related to the intervention.ConclusionsThe intervention was not fully implemented in this pragmatic trial. As delivered, it conferred no clinical benefits and is unlikely to be cost-effective compared with usual care from a stroke specialist provider organisation. It remains unclear how best to support carers of stroke survivors. To overcome the implementation challenges of person-centred care in carers' research and service development, staff training and organisational support would need to be enhanced.Trial registration numberISRCTN58414120.

Project description:Objective: It was the aim to assess feasibility, safety, and potential efficacy of a new intensive, focused arm-hand BOOST program and to investigate whether there is a difference between early vs. late delivery of the program in the sub-acute phase post stroke. Methods: In this pilot RCT, patients with stroke were randomized to the immediate group (IG): 4 weeks (4 w) BOOST +4 w CONTROL or the delayed group (DG): 4 w CONTROL +4 w BOOST, on top of their usual inpatient care program. The focused arm-hand BOOST program (1 h/day, 5x/week, 4 weeks) consisted of group exercises with focus on scapula-setting, core-stability, manipulation and complex ADL tasks. Additionally, 1 h per week the Armeo®Power (Hocoma AG, Switzerland) was used. The CONTROL intervention comprised a dose-matched program (24 one-hour sessions in 4 w) of lower limb strengthening exercises and general reconditioning. At baseline, after 4 and 8 weeks of training, the Fugl-Meyer assessment upper extremity (FMA-UE), action research arm test (ARAT), and stroke upper limb capacity scale (SULCS) were administered. Results: Eighteen participants (IG: n = 10, DG: n = 8) were included, with a median (IQR) time post stroke of 8.6 weeks (5-12). No adverse events were experienced. After 4 weeks of training, significant between-group differences were found for FMA-UE (p = 0.003) and SULCS (p = 0.033) and a trend for ARAT (p = 0.075) with median (IQR) change scores for the IG of 9 (7-16), 2 (1-3), and 12.5 (1-18), respectively, and for the DG of 0.5 (-3 to 3), 1 (0-1), and 1.5 (-1 to 9), respectively. In the IG, 80% of patients improved beyond the minimal clinical important difference of FMA-UE after 4 weeks, compared to none of the DG patients. Between 4 and 8 weeks of training, patients in the DG tend to show larger improvements when compared to the IG, however, between-group comparisons did not reach significance. Conclusions: Results of this pilot RCT showed that an intensive, specific arm-hand BOOST program, on top of usual care, is feasible and safe in the sub-acute phase post stroke and suggests positive, clinical meaningful effects on upper limb function, especially when delivered in the early sub-acute phase post stroke. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04584177.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Improvement of arm-hand function and arm-hand skill performance in stroke patients is reported by many authors. However, therapy content often is poorly described, data on actual arm-hand use are scarce, and, as follow-up time often is very short, little information on patients' mid- and long-term progression is available. Also, outcome data mainly stem from either a general patient group, unstratified for the severity of arm-hand impairment, or a very specific patient group. OBJECTIVES:To investigate to what extent the rate of improvement or deterioration of actual arm-hand use differs between stroke patients with either a severely, moderately or mildly affected arm-hand, during and after rehabilitation involving a well-defined rehabilitation program. METHODS:Design: single-armed prospective cohort study. Outcome measure: affected arm-hand use during daily tasks (accelerometry), expressed as 'Intensity-of arm-hand-use' and 'Duration-of-arm-hand-use' during waking hours. Measurement dates: at admission, clinical discharge and 3, 6, 9, and 12 months post-discharge. Statistics: Two-way repeated measures ANOVAs. RESULTS:Seventy-six patients (63 males); mean age: 57.6 years (sd:10.6); post-stroke time: 29.8 days (sd:20.1) participated. Between baseline and 1-year follow-up, Intensity-of-arm-hand-use on the affected side increased by 51%, 114% and 14% (p < .000) in the mildly, moderately and severely affected patients, respectively. Similarly, Duration-of-arm-hand-use increased by 26%, 220% and 161% (p < .000). Regarding bimanual arm-hand use: Intensity-of-arm-hand-use increased by 44%, 74% and 30% (p < .000), whereas Duration-of-arm-hand-use increased by 10%, 22% and 16% (p < .000). CONCLUSION:Stroke survivors with a severely, moderately or mildly affected arm-hand showed different, though (clinically) important, improvements in actual arm-hand use during the rehabilitation phase. Intensity-of-arm-hand-use and Duration-of-arm-hand-use significantly improved in both unimanual and bimanual tasks/skills. These improvements were maintained until at least 1 year post-discharge.

Dataset Information

Outcome measures in post-stroke arm rehabilitation trials: do existing measures capture outcomes that are important to stroke survivors, carers, and clinicians?

Objective:

Methods:

Results:

Conclusion:

Publications

Outcome measures in post-stroke arm rehabilitation trials: do existing measures capture outcomes that are important to stroke survivors, carers, and clinicians?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure