Dataset Information

Effectiveness of Rehabilitation Nursing versus Usual Therapist-Led Treatment in Patients with Acute Ischemic Stroke: A Randomized Non-Inferiority Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

To determine the effectiveness of rehabilitation nursing program interventions in patients with acute ischemic stroke.

Patients and methods

An assessment-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted at a tertiary referral hospital in China. Eligible patients were stratified according to their weighted corticospinal tract lesion load and then randomly assigned to an experimental group (n = 121) or a control group (n = 103). The experimental group received rehabilitation nursing from well-trained, qualified nurses (30 minutes per session, two sessions per day for seven consecutive days). The control group received therapist-led rehabilitation with the same timing and frequency. Comparative analysis of the primary outcomes was performed to determine non-inferiority with a predetermined non-inferiority margin. The primary outcomes were the Motor Assessment Scale, Fugl-Meyer Assessment, and the Action Research Arm Test assessed at baseline and after seven days of treatment. The secondary outcomes were the modified Barthel Index, the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, and the modified Rankin Scale, evaluated before and after the intervention and at 4 and 12 weeks of follow-up.

Results

Two hundred participants completed the trial. In both groups, all outcomes improved significantly after seven days and at follow-ups. The rehabilitation nursing program was non-inferior to therapist-led treatment with lower 95% confidence limits beyond the margins for primary outcomes (P < 0.001).

Conclusion

Both treatments had comparable effects; however, no definite conclusion could be drawn. Adequately powered studies are required.

SUBMITTER: Wang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8233001 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Despite increasing evidence regarding the benefit of intensive task-specific practice and aerobic exercise in stroke rehabilitation, implementation remains difficult. The factors influencing implementation have been explored from therapists' perspectives; however, despite an increased emphasis on patient involvement in research, patients' perceptions have not yet been investigated. OBJECTIVE:The study aimed to investigate factors influencing implementation of higher intensity activity in people with stroke and to compare this with therapists' perspectives. DESIGN:The design was a cross-sectional qualitative study. METHODS:The study used semistructured interviews with people with stroke who were part of a randomized clinical trial, the Determining Optimal post-Stroke Exercise study, which delivered a higher intensity intervention. An interview guide was developed and data analyzed using implementation frameworks. Factors emerging from interviews with people with stroke were compared and contrasted with factors perceived by rehabilitation therapists. RESULTS:Ten people with stroke were interviewed before data saturation was reached. Participants had a positive attitude regarding working hard and were satisfied with the graded exercise test, high intensity intervention, and the feedback-monitoring devices. Therapists and patients had contrasting perceptions about their beliefs regarding intensive exercise and the content of the intervention, with therapists more focused on the methods and patients more focused on the personal interactions stemming from the therapeutic relationship. CONCLUSIONS:People with stroke perceived no barriers regarding the implementation of higher intensity rehabilitation in practice and were positive towards working at more intense levels. Contrastingly, from the therapists' perspective, therapists' beliefs about quality of movement and issues around staffing and resources were perceived to be barriers. In addition, therapists and people with stroke perceived the contents of the intervention differently, highlighting the importance of involving patients and clinicians in the development and evaluation of rehabilitation interventions.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Osteoarthritis is the most common joint disorder worldwide. Total hip arthroplasty (THA) is considered one of the most effective treatments for end-stage hip osteoarthritis. The number of THAs is expected to increase dramatically in the coming decades. Usual postoperative rehabilitation after primary THA differs between the German and the Dutch system. In the Netherlands, patients undergo fast-track surgery and are discharged into their home environment within a few days without receiving any aftercare. In Germany, patients stay in the hospital for about 12 days before being transferred to a rehabilitation centre for a period of 3?weeks. The superficially more cost-effective Dutch system of usual care after THA is judged critically in both countries due to suboptimal rehabilitation outcomes. The aim of this study is therefore to compare the Dutch with the German usual care rehabilitation after primary THA. It is hypothesised that the German procedure is more effective in terms of functional outcomes and patient satisfaction than the Dutch procedure and that in the long run the German approach is more cost-effective than the Dutch system. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Medical effectiveness will be assessed at four different time points by means of patient self-reported questionnaires and functional tests. Assessments include the Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Patient Acceptable Symptom State, Short Form 36, EuroQol 5 Dimensions 3 Level Questionnaire, Timed Up & Go Test and Five Times Sit-to-Stand Test. Additionally, long-term economic aspects in both countries will be assessed from a societal perspective, to get a first impression on whether cutting costs for rehabilitation, as practised in the Netherlands, really disburdens the healthcare system efficiently. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study is approved by the Institutional Review Boards of both University Medical Center Groningen (METc2015/483) and Hannover Medical School (no 2874-2015) and will be conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (64th, 2013). The results of the study will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals. Patient data will be presented anonymously in any publication or scientific journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:DRKS00011345; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundEffective, accessible, and affordable depression treatment is of high importance considering the large personal and economic burden of depression. Internet-based treatment is considered a promising clinical and cost-effective alternative to current routine depression treatment strategies such as face-to-face psychotherapy. However, it is not clear whether research findings translate to routine clinical practice such as primary or specialized mental health care. The E-COMPARED project aims to gain knowledge on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of blended depression treatment compared to treatment-as-usual in routine care.Methods/designE-COMPARED will employ a pragmatic, multinational, randomized controlled, non-inferiority trial in eight European countries. Adults diagnosed with major depressive disorder (MDD) will be recruited in primary care (Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom) or specialized mental health care (France, The Netherlands, and Switzerland). Regular care for depression is compared to "blended" service delivery combining mobile and Internet technologies with face-to-face treatment in one treatment protocol. Participants will be followed up at 3, 6, and 12 months after baseline to determine clinical improvements in symptoms of depression (primary outcome: Patient Health Questionnaire-9), remission of depression, and cost-effectiveness. Main analyses will be conducted on the pooled data from the eight countries (n = 1200 in total, 150 participants in each country).DiscussionThe E-COMPARED project will provide mental health care stakeholders with evidence-based information and recommendations on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of blended depression treatment.Trial registrationFrance: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02542891 . Registered on 4 September 2015; Germany: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00006866 . Registered on 2 December 2014; The Netherlands: Netherlands Trials Register NTR4962 . Registered on 5 January 2015; Poland: ClinicalTrials.Gov NCT02389660 . Registered on 18 February 2015; Spain: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02361684 . Registered on 8 January 2015; Sweden: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02449447 . Registered on 30 March 2015; Switzerland: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02410616 . Registered on 2 April 2015; United Kingdom: ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN12388725 . Registered on 20 March 2015.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:s: Few feasibility, safety, and efficacy data exist regarding ICU-based rehabilitative services for children. We hypothesized that early protocolized assessment and therapy would be feasible and safe versus usual care in pediatric neurocritical care patients. DESIGN:Randomized controlled trial. SETTING:Three tertiary care PICUs in the United States. PATIENTS:Fifty-eight children between the ages of 3-17 years with new traumatic or nontraumatic brain insult and expected ICU admission greater than 48 hours. INTERVENTIONS:Early protocolized (consultation of physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech and language therapy within 72 hr ICU admission, n = 26) or usual care (consultation per treating team, n = 32). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Primary outcomes were consultation timing, treatment type, and frequency of deferrals and safety events. Secondary outcomes included patient and family functional and quality of life outcomes at 6 months. Comparing early protocolized (n = 26) and usual care groups (n = 32), physical therapy was consulted during the hospital admission in 26 of 26 versus 28 of 32 subjects (p = 0.062) on day 2.4 ± 0.8 versus 7.7 ± 4.8 (p = 0.001); occupational therapy in 26 of 26 versus 23 of 32 (p = 0.003), on day 2.3 ± 0.6 versus 6.9 ± 4.8 (p = 0.001); and speech and language therapy in 26 of 26 versus 17 of 32 (p = 0.011) on day 2.3 ± 0.7 versus 13.0 ± 10.8 (p = 0.026). More children in the early protocolized group had consults and treatments occur in the ICU versus ward for all three services (all p < 0.001). Eleven sessions were discontinued early: nine during physical therapy and two during occupational therapy, none impacting patient outcome. There were no group differences in functional or quality of life outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:A protocol for early personalized rehabilitation by physical therapy, occupational therapy, and speech and language therapy in pediatric neurocritical care patients could be safely implemented and led to more ICU-based treatment sessions, accelerating the temporal profile and changing composition of interventions versus usual care, but not altering the total dose of rehabilitation.