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.