Cargando…
EFFECT OF A COMPREHENSIVE EREHABILITATION INTERVENTION ALONGSIDE CONVENTIONAL STROKE REHABILITATION ON DISABILITY AND HEALTH-RELATED QUALITY OF LIFE: A PRE–POST COMPARISON
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect on disability and quality of life, of conventional rehabilitation (control group) with individualized, tailored eRehabilitation intervention alongside conventional rehabilitation (Fast@home; intervention group), for people with stroke. METHODS: Pre–post design. The i...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Foundation for Rehabilitation Information
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8814840/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33369683 http://dx.doi.org/10.2340/16501977-2785 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect on disability and quality of life, of conventional rehabilitation (control group) with individualized, tailored eRehabilitation intervention alongside conventional rehabilitation (Fast@home; intervention group), for people with stroke. METHODS: Pre–post design. The intervention comprised cognitive (Braingymmer®) and physical (Telerevalidatie®/Physitrack®) exercises, activity-tracking (Activ8®) and psycho-education. Assessments were made at admission (T0) and after 3 (T3) and 6 months (T6). The primary outcome concerned disability (Stroke Impact Scale; SIS). Secondary outcomes were: health-related quality of life, fatigue, self-management, participation and physical activity. Changes in scores between T0–T3, T3–T6, and T0–T6 were compared by analysis of variance and linear mixed models. RESULTS: The study included 153 and 165 people with stroke in the control and intervention groups, respectively. In the intervention group, 82 (50%) people received the intervention, of whom 54 (66%) used it. Between T3 and T6, the change in scores for the SIS subscales Communication (control group/intervention group –1.7/–0.3) and Physical strength (–5.7/3.3) were significantly greater in the total intervention group (all mean differences< minimally clinically important differences). No significant differences were found for other SIS subscales or secondary outcomes, or between T0–T3 and T0–T6. CONCLUSION: eRehabilitation alongside conventional stroke rehabilitation had a small positive effect on communication and physical strength on the longer term, compared to conventional rehabilitation only. |
---|