Cargando…

A client-centred ADL intervention: three-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE: The aim was to study a client-centred activities of daily living (ADL) intervention (CADL) compared with the usual ADL intervention (UADL) in people with stroke regarding: independence in ADL, perceived participation, life satisfaction, use of home-help service, and satisfaction with trai...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bertilsson, Ann-Sofie, Ranner, Maria, von Koch, Lena, Eriksson, Gunilla, Johansson, Ulla, Ytterberg, Charlotte, Guidetti, Susanne, Tham, Kerstin
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Informa Healthcare 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4196634/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24506231
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/11038128.2014.880126
_version_ 1782339509353971712
author Bertilsson, Ann-Sofie
Ranner, Maria
von Koch, Lena
Eriksson, Gunilla
Johansson, Ulla
Ytterberg, Charlotte
Guidetti, Susanne
Tham, Kerstin
author_facet Bertilsson, Ann-Sofie
Ranner, Maria
von Koch, Lena
Eriksson, Gunilla
Johansson, Ulla
Ytterberg, Charlotte
Guidetti, Susanne
Tham, Kerstin
author_sort Bertilsson, Ann-Sofie
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The aim was to study a client-centred activities of daily living (ADL) intervention (CADL) compared with the usual ADL intervention (UADL) in people with stroke regarding: independence in ADL, perceived participation, life satisfaction, use of home-help service, and satisfaction with training and, in their significant others, regarding: caregiver burden, life satisfaction, and informal care. METHODS: In this multicentre study, 16 rehabilitation units were randomly assigned to deliver CADL or UADL. The occupational therapists who provided the CADL were specifically trained. Eligible for inclusion were people with stroke treated in a stroke unit ≤3 months after stroke, dependent in ≥two ADL, not diagnosed with dementia, and able to understand instructions. Data were collected at inclusion and three months thereafter. To detect a significant difference between the groups in the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) domain “participation”, 280 participants were required. Intention-to-treat analysis was applied. RESULTS: At three months, there was no difference in the outcomes between the CADL group (n = 129) and the UADL group (n = 151), or their significant others (n = 87/n = 93) except in the SIS domain “emotion” in favour of CADL (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The CADL does not appear to bring about short-term differences in outcomes and longer follow-ups are required.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4196634
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Informa Healthcare
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41966342014-10-27 A client-centred ADL intervention: three-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial Bertilsson, Ann-Sofie Ranner, Maria von Koch, Lena Eriksson, Gunilla Johansson, Ulla Ytterberg, Charlotte Guidetti, Susanne Tham, Kerstin Scand J Occup Ther Original Article OBJECTIVE: The aim was to study a client-centred activities of daily living (ADL) intervention (CADL) compared with the usual ADL intervention (UADL) in people with stroke regarding: independence in ADL, perceived participation, life satisfaction, use of home-help service, and satisfaction with training and, in their significant others, regarding: caregiver burden, life satisfaction, and informal care. METHODS: In this multicentre study, 16 rehabilitation units were randomly assigned to deliver CADL or UADL. The occupational therapists who provided the CADL were specifically trained. Eligible for inclusion were people with stroke treated in a stroke unit ≤3 months after stroke, dependent in ≥two ADL, not diagnosed with dementia, and able to understand instructions. Data were collected at inclusion and three months thereafter. To detect a significant difference between the groups in the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) domain “participation”, 280 participants were required. Intention-to-treat analysis was applied. RESULTS: At three months, there was no difference in the outcomes between the CADL group (n = 129) and the UADL group (n = 151), or their significant others (n = 87/n = 93) except in the SIS domain “emotion” in favour of CADL (p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The CADL does not appear to bring about short-term differences in outcomes and longer follow-ups are required. Informa Healthcare 2014-09 2014-02-10 /pmc/articles/PMC4196634/ /pubmed/24506231 http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/11038128.2014.880126 Text en © Informa Healthcare http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND 3.0 License which permits users to download and share the article for non-commercial purposes, so long as the article is reproduced in the whole without changes, and provided the original source is credited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Bertilsson, Ann-Sofie
Ranner, Maria
von Koch, Lena
Eriksson, Gunilla
Johansson, Ulla
Ytterberg, Charlotte
Guidetti, Susanne
Tham, Kerstin
A client-centred ADL intervention: three-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial
title A client-centred ADL intervention: three-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial
title_full A client-centred ADL intervention: three-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr A client-centred ADL intervention: three-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed A client-centred ADL intervention: three-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial
title_short A client-centred ADL intervention: three-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial
title_sort client-centred adl intervention: three-month follow-up of a randomized controlled trial
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4196634/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24506231
http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/11038128.2014.880126
work_keys_str_mv AT bertilssonannsofie aclientcentredadlinterventionthreemonthfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT rannermaria aclientcentredadlinterventionthreemonthfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT vonkochlena aclientcentredadlinterventionthreemonthfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT erikssongunilla aclientcentredadlinterventionthreemonthfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT johanssonulla aclientcentredadlinterventionthreemonthfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT ytterbergcharlotte aclientcentredadlinterventionthreemonthfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT guidettisusanne aclientcentredadlinterventionthreemonthfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT thamkerstin aclientcentredadlinterventionthreemonthfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT bertilssonannsofie clientcentredadlinterventionthreemonthfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT rannermaria clientcentredadlinterventionthreemonthfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT vonkochlena clientcentredadlinterventionthreemonthfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT erikssongunilla clientcentredadlinterventionthreemonthfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT johanssonulla clientcentredadlinterventionthreemonthfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT ytterbergcharlotte clientcentredadlinterventionthreemonthfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT guidettisusanne clientcentredadlinterventionthreemonthfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT thamkerstin clientcentredadlinterventionthreemonthfollowupofarandomizedcontrolledtrial