Cargando…

Telerehabilitation After Stroke Using Readily Available Technology: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: The number of people living with stroke has increased demand for rehabilitation. A potential solution is telerehabilitation for health care delivery to promote self-management. One such approach is the Augmented Community Telerehabilitation Intervention (ACTIV). This structured 6-month p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Saywell, Nicola L., Vandal, Alain C., Mudge, Suzie, Hale, Leigh, Brown, Paul, Feigin, Valery, Hanger, Carl, Taylor, Denise
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7739128/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33190615
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1545968320971765
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The number of people living with stroke has increased demand for rehabilitation. A potential solution is telerehabilitation for health care delivery to promote self-management. One such approach is the Augmented Community Telerehabilitation Intervention (ACTIV). This structured 6-month program uses limited face-to-face sessions, telephone contact, and text messages to augment stroke rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether ACTIV improved physical function compared with usual care. METHODS: This 2-arm, parallel randomized controlled trial was conducted in 4 New Zealand centers. Inclusion criteria were patients with first-ever stroke, age >20 years, and discharged home. A blinded assessor completed outcome measurement in participants’ homes at baseline, postintervention, and 6 months postintervention. Stratified block randomization occurred after baseline assessment, with participants allocated to ACTIV or usual care control. RESULTS: A total of 95 people were recruited (ACTIV: n = 47; control: n = 48). Postintervention intention-to-treat analysis found a nonsignificant difference between the groups in scores (4·51; P = .07) for physical function (measured by the physical subcomponent of the Stroke Impact Scale). The planned per-protocol analysis (ACTIV: n = 43; control: n = 48) found a significant difference in physical function between the groups (5·28; P = .04). Improvements in physical function were not maintained at the 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: ACTIV was not effective in improving physical function in the ACTIV group compared with the usual care group. The per-protocol analysis raises the possibility that for those who receive more than 50% of the intervention, ACTIV may be effective in preventing deterioration or even improving physical function in people with stroke, in the period immediately following discharge from hospital.