Maria Walker

Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials of Community Occupational Therapy for Stroke Patients

Background and Purpose— Trials of occupational therapy for stroke patients living in the community have varied in their findings. It is unclear why these discrepancies have occurred. Methods— Trials were identified from searches of the Cochrane Library and other sources. The primary outcome measure was the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL) score at the end of intervention. Secondary outcome measures included the Barthel Index or the Rivermead ADL (Personal ADL), General Health Questionnaire (GHQ), Nottingham Leisure Questionnaire (NLQ), and death. Data were analyzed using linear or logistic regression with a random effect for trial and adjustment for age, gender, baseline dependency, and method of follow-up. Subgroup analyses compared any occupational therapy intervention with control. Results— We included 8 single-blind randomized controlled trials incorporating 1143 patients. Occupational therapy was associated with higher NEADL scores at the end of intervention (weighted mean difference [WMD], 1.30 points, 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.47 to 2.13) and higher leisure scores at the end of intervention (WMD, 1.51 points; 95% CI, 0.24 to 2.79). Occupational therapy emphasizing activities of daily living (ADL) was associated with improved end of intervention NEADL (WMD, 1.61 points; 95% CI, 0.72 to 2.49) and personal activities of daily living (odds ratio [OR], 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.91), but not NLQ. Leisure-based occupational therapy improved end of intervention NLQ (WMD, 1.96 points; 95% CI, 0.27 to 3.66) but not NEADL or PADL. Conclusions— Community occupational therapy significantly improved personal and extended activities of daily living and leisure activity in patients with stroke. Better outcomes were found with targeted interventions.

Randomised controlled trial of an occupational therapy intervention to increase outdoor mobility after stroke

Abstract Objective To evaluate an occupational therapy intervention to improve outdoor mobility after stroke. Design Randomised controlled trial. Setting General practice registers, social services departments, a primary care rehabilitation service, and a geriatric day hospital. Participants 168 community dwelling people with a clinical diagnosis of stroke in previous 36 months: 86 were allocated to the intervention group and 82 to the control group. Interventions Leaflets describing local transport services for disabled people (control group) and leaflets with assessment and up to seven intervention sessions by an occupational therapist (intervention group). Main outcome measures Responses to postal questionnaires at four and 10 months: primary outcome measure was response to whether participant got out of the house as much as he or she would like, and secondary outcome measures were response to how many journeys outdoors had been made in the past month and scores on the Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale, Nottingham leisure questionnaire, and general health questionnaire. Results Participants in the treatment group were more likely to get out of the house as often as they wanted at both four months (relative risk 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.25 to 2.37) and 10 months (1.74, 1.24 to 2.44). The treatment group reported more journeys outdoors in the month before assessment at both four months (median 37 in intervention group, 14 in control group: P < 0.01) and 10 months (median 42 in intervention group, 14 in control group: P < 0.01). At four months the mobility scores on the Nottingham extended activities of daily living scale were significantly higher in the intervention group, but there were no significant differences in the other secondary outcomes. No significant differences were observed in these measures at 10 months. Conclusion A targeted occupational therapy intervention at home increases outdoor mobility in people after stroke.

Occupational Therapy for Stroke Patients: A Survey of Current Practice:

A survey was carried out in order to ascertain the treatment approaches used in stroke care by senior I occupational therapists in the Trent Region of the United Kingdom. A random selection of these therapists was subsequently interviewed using semi-structured interviews and a case vignette in order to obtain more detailed information. Of the 83 questionnaires sent, 61 (73%) were returned; 14 therapists were interviewed. The two most common approaches identified were the functional approach and the Bobath approach. The main indications for the choice of approach were the age of the patient, progress with other approaches and discharge date. Of concern in the current climate of evidence-based practice was the high number of occupational therapists who were unfamiliar with standardised assessments and unable to describe adequately the theoretical basis for the treatment used.

The treatment of visual neglect using feedback of eye movements: a pilot study

Feedback of eye movements was evaluated as a treatment for visual neglect in right hemisphere stroke patients. Patients with visual neglect identified on the Behavioural Inattention Test (BIT) were randomly allocated to two groups. One group (n = 9) was treated for 2 h 40 min a week for 4 weeks, by wearing glasses which provided a reminder bleep if patients failed to move their eyes to the left in a 15 s interval. The control group (n = 9) received no treatment for their visual inattention. Comparison of the groups after 4 weeks treatment and a further 4 weeks follow-up showed no significant difference either in eye movements or on the BIT. However, there was a trend towards a difference between eye movements in the two groups at 8 weeks, suggesting treatment may have influenced eye movements without changing neglect.

Family-led rehabilitation after stroke in India (ATTEND): a randomised controlled trial

Summary Background Most people with stroke in India have no access to organised rehabilitation services. The effectiveness of training family members to provide stroke rehabilitation is uncertain. Our primary objective was to determine whether family-led stroke rehabilitation, initiated in hospital and continued at home, would be superior to usual care in a low-resource setting. Methods The Family-led Rehabilitation after Stroke in India (ATTEND) trial was a prospectively randomised open trial with blinded endpoint done across 14 hospitals in India. Patients aged 18 years or older who had had a stroke within the past month, had residual disability and reasonable expectation of survival, and who had an informal family-nominated caregiver were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care by site coordinators using a secure web-based system with minimisation by site and stroke severity. The family members of participants in the intervention group received additional structured rehabilitation training—including information provision, joint goal setting, carer training, and task-specific training—that was started in hospital and continued at home for up to 2 months. The primary outcome was death or dependency at 6 months, defined by scores 3–6 on the modified Rankin scale (range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) as assessed by masked observers. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI/2013/04/003557), Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12613000078752), and Universal Trial Number (U1111-1138-6707). Findings Between Jan 13, 2014, and Feb 12, 2016, 1250 patients were randomly assigned to intervention (n=623) or control (n=627) groups. 33 patients were lost to follow-up (14 intervention, 19 control) and five patients withdrew (two intervention, three control). At 6 months, 285 (47%) of 607 patients in the intervention group and 287 (47%) of 605 controls were dead or dependent (odds ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·78–1·23, p=0·87). 72 (12%) patients in the intervention group and 86 (14%) in the control group died (p=0·27), and we observed no difference in rehospitalisation (89 [14%]patients in the intervention group vs 82 [13%] in the control group; p=0·56). We also found no difference in total non-fatal events (112 events in 82 [13%] intervention patients vs 110 events in 79 [13%] control patients; p=0·80). Interpretation Although task shifting is an attractive solution for health-care sustainability, our results do not support investment in new stroke rehabilitation services that shift tasks to family caregivers, unless new evidence emerges. A future avenue of research should be to investigate the effects of task shifting to health-care assistants or team-based community care. Funding The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.BACKGROUND Most people with stroke in India have no access to organised rehabilitation services. The effectiveness of training family members to provide stroke rehabilitation is uncertain. Our primary objective was to determine whether family-led stroke rehabilitation, initiated in hospital and continued at home, would be superior to usual care in a low-resource setting. METHODS The Family-led Rehabilitation after Stroke in India (ATTEND) trial was a prospectively randomised open trial with blinded endpoint done across 14 hospitals in India. Patients aged 18 years or older who had had a stroke within the past month, had residual disability and reasonable expectation of survival, and who had an informal family-nominated caregiver were randomly assigned to intervention or usual care by site coordinators using a secure web-based system with minimisation by site and stroke severity. The family members of participants in the intervention group received additional structured rehabilitation training-including information provision, joint goal setting, carer training, and task-specific training-that was started in hospital and continued at home for up to 2 months. The primary outcome was death or dependency at 6 months, defined by scores 3-6 on the modified Rankin scale (range, 0 [no symptoms] to 6 [death]) as assessed by masked observers. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI/2013/04/003557), Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12613000078752), and Universal Trial Number (U1111-1138-6707). FINDINGS Between Jan 13, 2014, and Feb 12, 2016, 1250 patients were randomly assigned to intervention (n=623) or control (n=627) groups. 33 patients were lost to follow-up (14 intervention, 19 control) and five patients withdrew (two intervention, three control). At 6 months, 285 (47%) of 607 patients in the intervention group and 287 (47%) of 605 controls were dead or dependent (odds ratio 0·98, 95% CI 0·78-1·23, p=0·87). 72 (12%) patients in the intervention group and 86 (14%) in the control group died (p=0·27), and we observed no difference in rehospitalisation (89 [14%]patients in the intervention group vs 82 [13%] in the control group; p=0·56). We also found no difference in total non-fatal events (112 events in 82 [13%] intervention patients vs 110 events in 79 [13%] control patients; p=0·80). INTERPRETATION Although task shifting is an attractive solution for health-care sustainability, our results do not support investment in new stroke rehabilitation services that shift tasks to family caregivers, unless new evidence emerges. A future avenue of research should be to investigate the effects of task shifting to health-care assistants or team-based community care. FUNDING The National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.

Description of an Occupational Therapy Intervention Aimed at Improving Outdoor Mobility

After a stroke people can find outdoor mobility difficult, but a targeted occupational therapy intervention has been shown to help people to get out of the house more often. This study describes the intervention. The occupational therapists who provided the intervention kept records of the number and duration of therapy sessions, the goal of therapy and the activities undertaken. As part of the trial, functional and mobility outcome assessments were completed by the participants 4 and 10 months after recruitment and were used to compare the goals set with the goals achieved and the mobility performance. Eighty-six participants were randomised to, and 78 received, the intervention. They received a median of 6 (mean 4.7, SD 1.9) sessions, with an average of 40 minutes per session. Sixty (77%) of the participants achieved their primary goal. Those who did not had greater functional limitations at the start of the study than those who did. Walking was the most common goal (17/78, 22%) and the most performed activity (135 times, 33%). Thirteen participants achieved walking and 12 of these were still walking outside at the 10-month assessment. Three-quarters of people with stroke were therefore able to achieve their outdoor mobility goals after an occupational therapy intervention.

The Treatment of Visual Neglect Using the Transfer of Training Approach

Fourteen patients with visual neglect following a right hemisphere stroke were identified using the Behavioural Inattention Test. Patients received no practice on perceptual tasks for 4 weeks. Their abilities were assessed weekly. All patients then received practice on perceptual tasks designed to improve visual neglect for 4 weeks and results were analysed as single cases using an AB design. Only 3 of the 14 patients completing the study showed improved perceptual test scores following the introduction of treatment. These had the most severe visual neglect. The transfer of training approach does not appear to enhance the recovery of visual neglect in the majority of patients, although a few patients with severe problems may benefit.

The Community In-reach Rehabilitation and Care Transition (CIRACT) clinical and cost-effectiveness randomisation controlled trial in older people admitted to hospital as an acute medical emergency

Abstract Objective to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a Community In-reach Rehabilitation and Care Transition (CIRACT) service with the traditional hospital-based rehabilitation (THB-Rehab) service. Design pragmatic randomised controlled trial with an integral health economic study. Settings large UK teaching hospital, with community follow-up. Subjects frail older people aged 70 years and older admitted to hospital as an acute medical emergency. Measurements Primary outcome: hospital length of stay; secondary outcomes: readmission, day 91-super spell bed days, functional ability, co-morbidity and health-related quality of life; cost-effectiveness analysis. Results a total of 250 participants were randomised. There was no significant difference in length of stay between the CIRACT and THB-Rehab service (median 8 versus 9 days; geometric mean 7.8 versus 8.7 days, mean ratio 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74–1.10). Of the participants who were discharged from hospital, 17% and 13% were readmitted within 28 days from the CIRACT and THB-Rehab services, respectively (risk difference 3.8%, 95% CI −5.8% to 13.4%). There were no other significant differences in any of the other secondary outcomes between the two groups. The mean costs (including NHS and personal social service) of the CIRACT and THB-Rehab service were £3,744 and £3,603, respectively (mean cost difference £144; 95% CI −1,645 to 1,934). Conclusion the CIRACT service does not reduce major hospital length of stay nor reduce short-term readmission rates, compared to the standard THB-Rehab service; however, a modest (<2.3 days) effect cannot be excluded. Further studies are necessary powered with larger sample sizes and cluster randomisation. Trial registration ISRCTN 94393315, 25th April 2013

An Investigation of the Number and Cost of Assistive Devices Used by Older People Who Had Fallen and Called a 999 Ambulance

Some assistive devices, such as walking frames and bath boards, are provided by health and social services, but some are bought by people through shops, the internet and magazines or second hand. Using a face-to-face interview, the number and cost of assistive devices bought by people who had fallen and called a 999 ambulance were investigated. Two hundred and four older people (mean age 83 years, 72/35% men) who had fallen and called an emergency ambulance were interviewed at home by a research occupational therapist. A structured questionnaire about the cost and use of assistive devices was completed. Functional ability was measured using the Barthel Index and the Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale. One hundred and ten people (54%) had bought their own devices, spending a median of £700 each. People with multiple sclerosis, cancer, heart conditions and Parkinsons disease had spent over twice as much as those with osteoarthritis, stroke, diabetes and dementia. Many older people buy their own assistive devices at a considerable cost to themselves. As social services direct payments allow people to manage their own care packages, more people will be buying direct and may be looking for advice.