ICARUSS, the Integrated Care for the Reduction of Secondary Stroke trial: rationale and design of a randomized controlled trial of a multimodal intervention to prevent recurrent stroke in patients with a recent cerebrovascular event, ACTRN = 12611000264987

Interventions for the uptake of evidence-based recommendations in acute stroke settings

BACKGROUND

There is a growing body of research evidence to guide acute stroke care. Receiving care in a stroke unit improves access to recommended evidence-based therapies and patient outcomes. However, even in stroke units, evidence-based recommendations are inconsistently delivered by healthcare workers to patients with stroke. Implementation interventions are strategies designed to improve the delivery of evidence-based care.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of implementation interventions (compared to no intervention or another implementation intervention) on adherence to evidence-based recommendations by health professionals working in acute stroke units. Secondary objectives were to assess factors that may modify the effect of these interventions, and to determine if single or multifaceted strategies are more effective in increasing adherence with evidence-based recommendations.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Joanna Briggs Institute and ProQuest databases to 13 April 2022. We searched the grey literature and trial registries and reviewed reference lists of all included studies, relevant systematic reviews and primary studies; contacted corresponding authors of relevant studies and conducted forward citation searching of the included studies. There were no restrictions on language and publication date.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials. Participants were health professionals providing care to patients in acute stroke units; implementation interventions (i.e. strategies to improve delivery of evidence-based care) were compared to no intervention or another implementation intervention. We included studies only if they reported on our primary outcome which was quality of care, as measured by adherence to evidence-based recommendations, in order to address the review aim.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. We compared single implementation interventions to no intervention, multifaceted implementation interventions to no intervention, multifaceted implementation interventions compared to single implementation interventions and multifaceted implementation interventions to another multifaceted intervention. Our primary outcome was adherence to evidence-based recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven cluster-randomised trials with 42,489 patient participants from 129 hospitals, conducted in Australia, the UK, China, and the Netherlands. Health professional participants (numbers not specified) included nursing, medical and allied health professionals. Interventions in all studies included implementation strategies targeting healthcare workers; three studies included delivery arrangements, no studies used financial arrangements or governance arrangements. Five trials compared a multifaceted implementation intervention to no intervention, two trials compared one multifaceted implementation intervention to another multifaceted implementation intervention. No included studies compared a single implementation intervention to no intervention or to a multifaceted implementation intervention. Quality of care outcomes (proportions of patients receiving evidence-based care) were included in all included studies. All studies had low risks of selection bias and reporting bias, but high risk of performance bias. Three studies had high risks of bias from non-blinding of outcome assessors or due to analyses used. We are uncertain whether a multifaceted implementation intervention leads to any change in adherence to evidence-based recommendations compared with no intervention (risk ratio (RR) 1.73; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 3.61; 4 trials; 76 clusters; 2144 participants, I2 =92%, very low-certainty evidence). Looking at two specific processes of care, multifaceted implementation interventions compared to no intervention probably lead to little or no difference in the proportion of patients with ischaemic stroke who received thrombolysis (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.37, 2 trials; 32 clusters; 1228 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), but probably do increase the proportion of patients who receive a swallow screen within 24 hours of admission (RR 6.76, 95% CI 4.44 to 10.76; 1 trial; 19 clusters; 1,804 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Multifaceted implementation interventions probably make little or no difference in reducing the risk of death, disability or dependency compared to no intervention (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.02; 3 trials; 51 clusters ; 1228 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and probably make little or no difference to hospital length of stay compared with no intervention (difference in absolute change 1.5 days; 95% CI -0.5 to 3.5; 1 trial; 19 clusters; 1804 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We do not know if a multifaceted implementation intervention compared to no intervention result in changes to resource use or health professionals' knowledge because no included studies collected these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain whether a multifaceted implementation intervention compared to no intervention improves adherence to evidence-based recommendations in acute stroke settings, because the certainty of evidence is very low.

Cost-effectiveness of patient navigation programs for stroke patients-A systematic review

Objective

Stroke remains a leading cause of premature death, impairment and reduced quality of life. Its aftercare is performed by numerous different health care service providers, resulting in a high need for coordination. Personally delivered patient navigation (PN) is a promising approach for managing pathways through health care systems and for improving patient outcomes. Although PN in stroke care is evolving, no summarized information on its cost-effectiveness in stroke survivors is available. Hence, the aim of this systematic review is to analyze the level of evidence on the cost-effectiveness of PN for stroke survivors.

Methods

A systematic literature search without time limitations was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL as well as PsycINFO and supplemented by a manual search. Randomized controlled trials published prior to April 2020 in English or German were considered eligible if any results regarding the cost-effectiveness of PN for stroke survivors were reported. The review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. Quality of included studies was assessed with the RoB2 tool. Main study characteristics and cost-effectiveness results were summarized and discussed.

Results

The search identified 1442 records, and two studies met the inclusion criteria. Quality of included studies was rated moderate and high. Programs, settings and cost-effectiveness results were heterogeneous, with one study showing a 90% probability of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay of $25600 per QALY (health/social care perspective) and the other showing similar QALYs and higher costs.

Conclusions

Since only two studies were eligible, this review reveals a large gap in knowledge regarding the cost-effectiveness of PN for stroke survivors. Furthermore, no conclusive statement about the cost-effectiveness can be made. Future attempts to evaluate PN for stroke survivors are necessary and should also involve cost-effectiveness issues.

Factors influencing health behaviour, blood pressure control, and disability in hypertensive ischaemic stroke patients after a comprehensive reminder intervention

AIMS

To test prospective pathways of a Comprehensive Reminder System based on the Health Belief Model (CRS-HBM), stroke knowledge, health belief in health behaviour, blood pressure (BP) control, and disability in hypertensive ischaemic stroke patients at 6-month postdischarge.

DESIGN

A nested cohort study design.

METHODS

Data were derived from a randomized controlled trial evaluating the effects of the intervention (N = 174, performed during February 2015 - March 2016). Data were collected by questionnaires and analysed in structural equation modelling in Mplus software.

RESULTS

The proposed model provided a good fit to the data. This model accounted for 51.5% of the variance in health behaviour, 34.1% in BP control, and 5.7% in modified Rankin Scale score at 6-month postdischarge. The CRS-HBM had: (a) direct positive effect (β = .391, p < .001) and indirect positive effects (β = .186, p = .002) on health behaviour; (b) direct positive effect (β = .356, p < .001) and indirect positive effects (β = .183, p = .009) on BP control; and (c) indirect negative effect (β = -.146, p = .008) on disability. Being female was linked to better health behaviour. Higher education predicted higher level of stroke knowledge and health belief.

CONCLUSIONS

The CRS-HBM can not only directly but also indirectly improve patients' health behaviours by improving their health knowledge or health belief. Better health behaviour can improve patients' BP control and reduce disability. Therefore, nurses need to pay more attention to not only patients' health knowledge but also their health belief when providing education.

IMPACT

The CRS-HBM intervention accounted for 51.5% of variance in health behaviour, 34.1% in BP control, and 5.7% in modified Rankin Scale score at 6-month postdischarge. This research can help nurses improve health education strategies in postdischarge and community contexts to achieve better health results.

The Efficacy of a Comprehensive Reminder System to Improve Health Behaviors and Blood Pressure Control in Hypertensive Ischemic Stroke Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The health behaviors of hypertensive stroke patients in China are not satisfactory. In this study, we tested the effect of a Health Belief Model Comprehensive Reminder System on health behaviors and blood pressure control in hypertensive ischemic stroke patients after occurrence and hospital discharge.

METHODS

A randomized, parallel-group, assessor-blinded experimental design yielded participation of 174 hospitalized hypertensive ischemic stroke patients. The intervention consisted of face-to-face and telephone health belief education, a patient calendar handbook, and weekly automated short-message services. Data were collected at baseline and 3 months after discharge.

RESULTS

Three months after discharge, the intervention group showed statistically, significantly better health behaviors for physical activity, nutrition, low-salt diet, and medication adherence. The intervention group also had statistically, significantly decreased systolic blood pressure and increased blood pressure control rate. Smoking and alcohol use behaviors were not affected.

CONCLUSION

At 3 months, use of the Comprehensive Reminder System based on the Health Belief Model, yielded improvement in most health behaviors and blood pressure control in hypertensive ischemic stroke patients. Continued implementation of this intervention protocol is warranted to determine the long-term effect. Smoking and alcohol use behaviors need to be targeted with a different intervention.

ICARUSS: An effective model for risk factor management in stroke survivors

Background and purpose

After an initial stroke, the risk of recurrent stroke is high. Models that implement best-practice recommendations for risk factor management in stroke survivors to prevent stroke recurrence remain elusive. We examined a model which focuses on vascular risk factor management to prevent stroke recurrence in survivors returning to their primary care physicians. This model is coordinated from the stroke unit, integrates specialist stroke services with primary care physicians, and directly involves patients and carers in risk factor management. It is underpinned by the shared care principle in which there is joint participation of specialists as well as primary care physicians in a planned, integrated delivery of care with ongoing involvement of patients and carers, a structure which encourages implementation of best-practice recommendations as well as transferability and sustainability. We hypothesized that an integrated, multimodal intervention based on a shared-care model which supports joint participation of stroke specialists and primary care physicians would improve the implementation of best-practice recommendations for risk factor management in stroke survivors returning to the community.

Methods

We undertook a double-blind randomized controlled trial, testing the model in three Australian cities using stroke survivors admitted to stroke units and discharged from hospital to return to their primary care physicians. The model was a shared care, multifaceted integrated program which included bidirectional feedback between general practitioner and specialist unit, education, and engagement of patient and carer in self-management with ongoing input from a multidisciplinary team. The primary endpoint was improvement or abolition of risk factors such as raised blood pressure, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, the modification of adverse life-style factors such as lack of exercise, smoking and alcohol abuse and adherence to preventive medication at one year. Intermediate measurement points were scheduled at three monthly intervals. Analysis was by intention to treat, evaluated by covariance or a linear model adjusting for confounding factors or variance of base-line risk factors. The study was registered as ACTRN = 1261100026498.

Results

The study population was as follows: intervention ( n = 112), control ( n = 137). At baseline, there was no statistical difference between the groups for any variable. At the 12-month evaluation, there was a significant decrease in systolic blood pressure from baseline in the intervention group of 5.2 mmHg ( p < 0.01). This change was not observed in the control group ( p = 0.29). Moreover, at 12 months the mean systolic blood pressure in the intervention group was 129.4 mmHg (SD 14.7), a result which was not obtained in controls. Fasting total cholesterol as well as triglycerides was reduced significantly in the intervention group (both p < 0.01) but this was not the case in the control group ( p = 0.11 and p = 0.27, respectively). At 12 months, there was no change in BMI in the intervention group but there was a significant increase in BMI ( p = 0.02) in the control group. At 12 months in the intervention group, the mean distance walked with ease compared to the baseline measurements was increased by a mean distance of 600 m while in the control group the distance walked with ease was reduced compared to that measured at baseline. At 12 months, the Barthel index in the intervention group demonstrated improved function ( p = 0.01), but no change was observed in controls. At 12 months in the intervention group, there was a significant decrease in number of standard alcoholic drinks consumed per week compared to the baseline ( p = 0.04). This was not observed in the control group ( p = 0.34).

Conclusion

In stroke survivors, the ICARUSS (Integrated Care for the Reduction of Secondary Stroke) model is superior to usual care with respect to best-practice recommendations for traditional risk factors as well as behavioral and functional outcomes.

Controlled Education of patients after Stroke (CEOPS)- nurse-led multimodal and long-term interventional program involving a patient's caregiver to optimize secondary prevention of stroke: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Setting up a follow-up secondary prevention program after stroke is difficult due to motor and cognitive impairment, but necessary to prevent recurrence and improve patients' quality of life. To involve a referent nurse and a caregiver from the patient's social circle in nurse-led multimodal and long-term management of risk factors after stroke could be an advantage due to their easier access to the patient and family. The aim of this study is to compare the benefit of optimized follow up by nursing personnel from the vascular neurology department including therapeutic follow up, and an interventional program directed to the patient and a caregiving member of their social circle, as compared with typical follow up in order to develop a specific follow-up program of secondary prevention of stroke.

METHODS/DESIGN

The design is a randomized, controlled, clinical trial conducted in the French Stroke Unit of the Strokavenir network. In total, 410 patients will be recruited and randomized in optimized follow up or usual follow up for 2 years. In both group, patients will be seen by a neurologist at 6, 12 and 24 months. The optimized follow up will include follow up by a nurse from the vascular neurology department, including therapeutic follow up, and a training program on secondary prevention directed to the patient and a caregiving member of their social circle. After discharge, a monthly telephone interview, in the first year and every 3 months in the second year, will be performed by the nurse. At 6, 12 and 24 month, the nurse will give the patient and caregiver another training session. Usual follow up is only done by the patient's general practitioner, after classical information on secondary prevention of risk factors during hospitalization. The primary outcome measure is blood pressure measured after the first year of follow up. Blood pressure will be measured by nursing personnel who do not know the group into which the patient has been randomized. Secondary endpoints are associated mortality, morbidity, recurrence, drug side-effects and medico-economic analysis.

DISCUSSION

The result of this trial is expected to provide the benefit of a nurse-led optimized multimodal and long-term interventional program for management of risk factors after stroke, personalizing the role of the nurse and including the patient's caregiver.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT 02132364. Registered on 7 May 2014. EUDRACT, A 00473-40.