A multi-centre randomised controlled trial of rehabilitation aimed at improving outdoor mobility for people after stroke: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Interventions to improve outdoor mobility among people living with disabilities: A systematic review

Background

Around 15% of the global population live with some form of disabilities and experience worse health outcomes, less participation in the community and are part of fewer activities outside the home. Outdoor mobility interventions aim to improve the ability to move, travel and orient outside the home and could influence the number of activities outside the home, participation and quality of life. However, outdoor mobility interventions may also lead to harm like falls or injuries or have unforeseen effects which could lead to mortality or hospitalization.

Objectives

To assess the efficacy of interventions aiming to improve outdoor mobility for adults living with disabilities and to explore if the efficacy varies between different conditions and different intervention components.

Search Methods

Standard, extensive Campbell search methods were used, including a total of 12 databases searched during January 2023, including trial registries.

Selection Criteria

Only randomized controlled trials were included, focusing on people living with disabilities, comparing interventions to improve outdoor mobility to control interventions as well as comparing different types of interventions to improve outdoor mobility.

Data Collection and Analysis

Standard methodological procedures expected by Campbell were used. The following important outcomes were 1. Activity outside the home; 2. Engagement in everyday life activities; 3. Participation; 4. Health-related Quality of Life; 5. Major harms; 6. Minor harms. The impact of the interventions was evaluated in the shorter (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) after starting the intervention. Results are presented using risk ratios (RR), risk difference (RD), and standardized mean differences (SMD), with the associated confidence intervals (CI). The risk of bias 2-tool and the GRADE-framework were used to assess the certainty of the evidence.

Main Results

The screening comprised of 12.894 studies and included 22 studies involving 2.675 people living with disabilities and identified 12 ongoing studies. All reported outcomes except one (reported in one study, some concerns of bias) had overall high risk of bias. Thirteen studies were conducted in participants with disabilities due to stroke, five studies with older adults living with disabilities, two studies with wheelchair users, one study in participants with disabilities after a hip fracture, and one study in participants with cognitive impairments. Skill training interventions versus control interventions (16 studies) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of skill training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility among all people living with disabilities both in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Participation; Health-related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life activities among people with disabilities in the shorter term (RR: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.16 to 1.84; I 2 = 7%; RD: 0.15; 95% CI: -0.02 to 0.32; I 2 = 71%; 692 participants; three studies; low certainty evidence), but the evidence is very uncertain in the longer term, based on very low certainty evidence. Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with disabilities due to cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter term (SMD: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.81; I 2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Subgroup analysis of skill training interventions among people living with cognitive impairments suggests that such interventions may improve health-related quality of life in the shorter term (SMD: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.88; I 2 = NA; 118 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Physical training interventions versus control interventions (five studies) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of physical training interventions versus control interventions not aimed to improve outdoor mobility in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for: Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health-related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. Physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the shorter (SMD: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.61; I 2 = NA; 228 participants; one study; low certainty evidence) and longer term (≥7 months) (SMD: 0.27; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.54; I 2 = NA; 216 participants; one study; low certainty evidence). Comparison of different outdoor mobility interventions (one study) The evidence is very uncertain about the benefits and harms of outdoor mobility interventions of different lengths in the shorter term (≤6 months) and longer term (≥7 months) for Activity outside the home; Engagement in everyday life activities; Participation; Health-related Quality of Life; Major harms; and Minor harms, based on very low certainty evidence. No studies explored the efficacy of other types of interventions.

Authors’ Conclusions

Twenty-two studies of interventions to improve outdoor mobility for people living with disabilities were identified, but the evidence still remains uncertain about most benefits and harms of these interventions, both in the short- and long term. This is primarily related to risk of bias, small underpowered studies and limited reporting of important outcomes for people living with disabilities. For people with disabilities, skill training interventions may improve engagement in everyday life in the short term, and improve activity outside the home and health-related quality of life for people with cognitive impairments in the short term. Still, this is based on low certainty evidence from few studies and should be interpreted with caution. One study with low certainty evidence suggests that physical training interventions may improve activity outside the home in the short term. In addition, the effect sizes across all outcomes were considered small or trivial, and could be of limited relevance to people living with disabilities. The evidence is currently uncertain if there are interventions that can improve outdoor mobility for people with disabilities, and can improve other important outcomes, while avoiding harms. To guide decisions about the use of interventions to improve outdoor mobility, future studies should use more rigorous design and report important outcomes for people with disabilities to reduce the current uncertainty.

Home-based Extended Rehabilitation for Older people (HERO): study protocol for an individually randomised controlled multi-centre trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a home-based exercise intervention for older people with frailty as extended rehabilitation following acute illness or injury, including embedded process evaluation

Background

The majority of older people (> 65 years) in hospital have frailty and are at increased risk of readmission or death following discharge home. In the UK, following acute hospitalisation, around one third of older people with frailty are referred on for rehabilitation, termed ‘intermediate care’ services. Although this rehabilitation can reduce early readmission to hospital (< 30 days), recipients often do not feel ready to leave the service on discharge, suggesting possible incomplete recovery. Limited evidence suggests extended rehabilitation is of benefit in several conditions and there is preliminary evidence that progressive physical exercise can improve mobility and function for older people with frailty, and slow progression to disability. Our aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Home-based Older People’s Exercise (HOPE) programme as extended rehabilitation for older people with frailty discharged home from hospital or intermediate care services after acute illness or injury.

Methods

A multi-centre individually randomised controlled trial, to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the HOPE programme. This individualised, graded and progressive 24-week exercise programme is delivered by NHS physiotherapy teams to people aged 65 and older with frailty, identified using the Clinical Frailty Scale, following discharge from acute hospitalisation and linked intermediate care rehabilitation pathways. The primary outcome is physical health-related quality of life, measured using the physical component summary score of the modified Short Form 36- item health questionnaire (SF36) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include self-reported physical and mental health, functional independence, death, hospitalisations, care home admissions. Plans include health economic analyses and an embedded process evaluation.

Discussion

This trial seeks to determine if extended rehabilitation, via the HOPE programme, can improve physical health-related quality of life for older people with frailty following acute hospitalisation. Results will improve awareness of the rehabilitation needs of older people with frailty, and provide evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the targeted exercise intervention. There is potential for considerable benefit for health and social care services through widespread implementation of trial findings if clinical and cost-effectiveness is demonstrated.

Trial registration

ISRCTN 13927531. Registered on April 19, 2017.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05778-5.

Optimising the validity and completion of adherence diaries: a multiple case study and randomised crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Diaries are the most commonly used adherence measurement method in home-based rehabilitation trials, yet their completion and validity varies widely between trials. We aimed to: (1) generate theory to explain this variation, (2) create an optimised diary and (3) evaluate the optimised diary's validity.

METHODS

Stage 1.

DEVELOPMENT

using a multiple case study approach, we collected trialist interviews (n = 7), trial publications (n = 16) and diaries (n = 7) from seven purposively sampled UK rehabilitation trials. We explored return rates, diary designs and trialists' ideas as to what affected diary completion and validity. Using explanatory case study analysis, we developed a diary optimisation model. Stage 2.

EVALUATION

we compared a diary optimised according to several model components to one nonoptimised according to the same components in a randomised AB/BA crossover trial. Healthy adults aged 60+ years without mobility impairments undertook a home-based 8-week walking programme. They recorded walking duration and frequency for 4 weeks per diary. We hypothesised that the optimised diary would possess greater validity for self-reported adherence to walking duration (criterion: the Activpal accelerometer), assessed during each diary's final week. Participants were blinded to the hypothesis. Secondary outcomes included test-retest reliability and acceptability. Ethical approval was granted from Glasgow Caledonian University.

RESULTS

Thirty-two out of 33 participants completed the study. Diaries did not significantly differ in validity, reliability or acceptability. Both diaries agreed closely with the Activpal when assessing duration adherence at a group level, however, inter and intraindividual variation in validity was high (mean difference (95 % limits of agreement (LOA): limits of agreement plot the difference between measurements collected using two different methods against their mean and thus assess the extent to which the two measures agree with each other)) optimised diary = 3.09 % (-103.3 to 109.5 %), nonoptimised diary = -0.34 % (-131.1 to 130.5 %), p = 0.732). We found similarly wide LOA for percentage of days adhered to and percentage of walks taken, whilst frequency adherence was underestimated. Participants rated both diaries as low-burden and equal numbers favoured each diary or were neutral. Preference appeared to impact minimally upon validity.

CONCLUSION

Group-level adherence diary data are likely to be valid. However, individual diary data lack validity, which raises concerns if using this data in calculations such as predicting functional outcomes. Different diary designs are likely interchangeable, though unanticipated high variation meant that this study was underpowered.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was not eligible for registration in a clinical trial database as diary measurement property outcomes, not clinical health outcomes of participants, were assessed.

Interventions for improving community ambulation in individuals with stroke

BACKGROUND

Community ambulation refers to the ability of a person to walk in their own community, outside of their home and also indoors in private or public locations. Some people choose to walk for exercise or leisure and may walk with others as an important aspect of social functioning. Community ambulation is therefore an important skill for stroke survivors living in the community whose walking ability has been affected.

OBJECTIVES

To determine: (1) whether interventions improve community ambulation for stroke survivors, and (2) if any specific intervention method improves community ambulation more than other interventions.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (November 2013), PubMed (1946 to November 2013), EMBASE (1980 to November 2013), CINAHL (1982 to November 2013), PsycINFO (1887 to November 2013), Scopus (1960 to November 2013), Web of Science (1900 to November 2013), SPORTDiscus (1975 to November 2013), and PEDro, CIRRIE and REHABDATA (November 2013). We also searched ongoing trials registers (November 2013) and reference lists, and performed a cited reference search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Selection criteria included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over RCTs, studies in which participants are adult (aged 18 years or more) stroke survivors, and interventions that were aimed at improving community ambulation. We defined the primary outcome as participation; secondary outcomes included activity level outcomes related to gait and self-efficacy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author independently screened titles. Two review authors screened abstracts and full text articles, with a third review author was available to resolve any disagreements. Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. All outcomes were continuous. The analysis for the primary outcome used the generic inverse variance methods for meta-analysis, using the standardised mean difference (SMD) and standard error (SE) from the participation outcomes. Analyses for secondary outcomes all used SMD or mean difference (MD). We completed analyses for each outcome with all studies, and by type of community ambulation intervention (community or outdoor ambulation practice, virtual practice, and imagery practice). We considered trials for each outcome to be of low quality due to some trial design considerations, such as who knew what group the participants were in, and the number of people who dropped out of the studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five studies involving 266 participants (136 intervention; 130 control). All participants were adult stroke survivors, living in the community or a care home. Programmes to improve community ambulation consisted of walking practice in a variety of settings and environments in the community, or an indoor activity that mimicked community walking (including virtual reality or mental imagery). Three studies were funded by government agencies, and two had no funding.From two studies of 198 people there was low quality evidence for the effect of intervention on participation compared with control (SMD, 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.20 to 0.35 (using inverse variance). The CI for the effect of the intervention on gait speed was wide and does not exclude no difference (MD 0.12, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.24; four studies, 98 participants, low quality evidence). We considered the quality of the evidence to be low for all the remaining outcomes in our review: Community Walk Test (MD -6.35, 95% CI -21.59 to 8.88); Walking Ability Questionnaire (MD 0.53, 95% CI -5.59 to 6.66); Six-Minute Walk Test (MD 39.62 metres, 95% CI -8.26 to 87.51) and self-efficacy (SMD 0.32, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.72). We downgraded the quality of the evidence because of a high risk of bias and imprecision.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence to establish the effect of community ambulation interventions or to support a change in clinical practice. More research is needed to determine if practicing outdoor or community walking will improve participation and community ambulation skills for stroke survivors living in the community.

What determines the self-rated health of older individuals with stroke compared to other older individuals? A cross-sectional analysis of the Medical Research Council Cognitive Function and Aging Study

BACKGROUND

Poor self-rated health has been associated with poorer objective health outcomes across a range of conditions including stroke. Identification of factors associated with poor self-rated health in stroke survivors has received little attention compared to that in other older individuals. This study identifies determinants of self-rated health in older individuals with or without a history of stroke participating in the population-representative MRC Cognitive Function and Aging Study (MRC CFAS).

METHODS

The MRC CFAS is a multicentred longitudinal survey of a population representative sample of people in their 65th year and older at baseline. Baseline interview included questions about functional disability, psychiatric history, independent living status, social interactions, and cognitive function. Multiple logistic regression was used to determine associations between demographic, physical, cognitive, psychological and social factors with poor self-rated health among those with and without stroke.

RESULTS

After excluding those with impaired cognitive function, 776 individuals out of 11,957 reported a stroke. Factors associated with self-rated health were similar between those with or without a stroke in older individuals. Poorer self-rated health in those who had suffered a stroke was associated predominantly with the presence of comorbidity with diabetes (OR 3.5; 95% CI 1.5-8.1) and not "getting out and about" (OR 2.6; 95% CI 1.7-4.1) even after adjustment for disability levels and for depression. In those without a stroke the most important determinants were disability (OR 3.9; 95% CI 3.2-4.8) and not "getting out and about" (OR 2.9; 95% CI 2.5-3.3). The presence of disability was less strongly associated with poor self-rated health in those with a history of stroke than those without due to a substantially higher reporting of poor self-rated health in the non-disabled stroke group than the non-disabled stroke-free group, while those with disabilities reported poor self-rated health irrespective of stroke status.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-rated health is determined by a range of psychological and social factors in addition to disability in older patients with stroke. Addressing social integration and mobility out of the home is an important element of rehabilitation for older people with stroke as well as those without.