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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |