ORCID Profile
0000-0001-7466-4414
Current Organisations
National Institute for Health Research
,
University of Leeds
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 24-07-2022
DOI: 10.1080/09638288.2021.1955307
Abstract: Sedentary behaviour (SB) is associated with negative health outcomes and is prevalent post-stroke. This study explored SB after stroke from the perspective of stroke service staff. Qualitative mixed-methods study. Non-participant observations in two stroke services (England/Scotland) and semi-structured interviews with staff underpinned by the COM-B model of behaviour change. Observations were analysed thematically interviews were analysed using the Framework approach. One hundred and thirty-two observation hours (October - December 2017), and 31 staff interviewed (January -June 2018). Four themes were identified: (1) Opportunities for staff to support stroke survivors to reduce SB (2) Physical and psychological capability of staff to support stroke survivors to reduce SB (3) Motivating factors influencing staff behaviour to support stroke survivors to reduce SB (4) Staff suggestions for a future intervention to support stroke survivors to reduce SB. Staff are aware of the consequences of prolonged sitting but did not relate to SB. Explicit knowledge of SB was limited. Staff need training to support stroke survivors to reduce SB. Sedentary behaviour in the community was not reported to change markedly, highlighting the need to engage stroke survivors in movement from when capable in hospital, following through to home.Implications for rehabilitationStroke survivor sedentary behaviour is influenced, directly and indirectly, by the actions and instructions of stroke service staff in the inpatient and community setting.The built and social environment, both in the inpatient and community settings, may limit opportunities for safe movement and can result in stroke survivors spending more time sedentary.Stroke service staff appreciate the benefit of encouraging stroke survivors to stand and move more, if it is safe for them to do so.Staff would be amenable to encourage stroke survivors to reduce sedentary behaviour, provided they have the knowledge and resources to equip them to support this.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 04-07-2019
Abstract: Over the last 10 years, evidence has emerged that too much sedentary time (e.g. time spent sitting down) has adverse effects on health, including an increased risk of cardiovascular disease incidence and mortality. A considerable amount of media attention has been given to the topic. The current UK activity guidelines recommend that all adults should minimize the amount of time spent being sedentary for extended periods. How best to minimize sedentary behavior is a focus of ongoing research. Understanding the impact of sedentary behaviors on the health of people with stroke is vital as they are some of the most sedentary in iduals in society. Implementing strategies to encourage regular, short breaks in sedentary behaviors has potential to improve health outcomes after stroke. Intervention work already conducted with adults and older adults suggests that sedentary behaviors can be changed. A research priority is to explore the determinants of sedentary behavior in people with stroke and to develop tailored interventions.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 07-2017
Abstract: Recent reviews have demonstrated that the quality of stroke rehabilitation research has continued to improve over the last four decades but despite this progress, there are still many barriers in moving the field forward. Rigorous development, monitoring and complete reporting of interventions in stroke trials are essential in providing rehabilitation evidence that is robust, meaningful and implementable. An international partnership of stroke rehabilitation experts committed to develop consensus-based core recommendations with a remit of addressing the issues identified as limiting stroke rehabilitation research in the areas of developing, monitoring and reporting stroke rehabilitation interventions. Work exploring each of the three areas took place via multiple teleconferences and a two-day meeting in Philadelphia in May 2016. A total of 15 recommendations were made. To validate the need for the recommendations, the group reviewed all stroke rehabilitation trials published in 2015 (n = 182 papers). Our review highlighted that the majority of publications did not clearly describe how interventions were developed or monitored during the trial. In particular, under-reporting of the theoretical rationale for the intervention and the components of the intervention call into question many interventions that have been evaluated for efficacy. More trials were found to have addressed the reporting of interventions recommendations than those related to development or monitoring. Nonetheless, the majority of reporting recommendations were still not adequately described. To progress the field of stroke rehabilitation research and to ensure stroke patients receive optimal evidence-based clinical care, we urge the research community to endorse and adopt our recommendations.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 09-03-2015
DOI: 10.1111/IJS.12475
Abstract: The aim of this pilot study was to determine the feasibility of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in India of a family-led, trained caregiver-delivered, home-based rehabilitation intervention vs. routine care. A prospective, randomized (within seven-days of hospital admission), blinded outcome assessor, controlled trial of structured home-based rehabilitation delivered by trained and protocol-guided family caregivers (intervention) vs. routine care alone (control) was conducted in patients with residual disability. Key feasibility measures were recruitment, acceptance and adherence to assessment procedures, and follow-up of participants over six-months. CTRI/2014/10/005133. A total of 104 patients from the stroke unit at Christian Medical College, Ludhiana were recruited over nine-months. Recruitment was feasible and accepted by patients and their carers. Important observations were made regarding potential unblinding of the participants, contamination of therapy between the randomized groups, organization of home visits, and resources required for a multicenter study. The pilot study established the feasibility of conducting a large-scale study of family-led, trained caregiver-delivered, home-based stroke rehabilitation in a low resource setting. The main phase of the trial ‘ATTEND’ is currently underway in over 10 centers in India.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 08-2015
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 04-2009
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 12-2019
DOI: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.024876
Abstract: There is limited evidence to guide rehabilitation to meet the longer term needs of stroke survivors. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS) provided following early supported discharge were determined. EXTRAS was a pragmatic parallel-group observer-blind randomized controlled trial involving 19 UK centers. Patients with stroke were in idually randomized to receive EXTRAS or usual care at discharge from early supported discharge. Five EXTRAS reviews were provided by an early supported discharge team member between one and 18 months, usually by telephone. Reviews consisted of a semi-structured interview assessing progress, rehabilitation needs, and service provision, with goal setting and action planning. The primary outcome was performance in extended activities of daily living (Nottingham EADL Scale) at 24 months post-randomization. The Nottingham EADL Scale is scored 0 to 66, with higher scores indicating better performance in these activities. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using resource utilization costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years. Analyses were intention to treat. Between January 9, 2013 and October 26, 2015, 573 participants were randomized (EXTRAS, n=285 usual care, n=288). Mean 24 month Nottingham EADL Scale scores were EXTRAS (n=219) 40.0 (SD 18.1) and usual care (n=231) 37.2 (SD 18.5) giving an adjusted mean difference of 1.8 (95% CI, –0.7 to 4.2). 1155/1338 (86%) of expected EXTRAS reviews were undertaken. Over 24 months, the mean cost of resource utilization was lower in the intervention group: –£311 (–$450 [95% CI, −£3292 to £2787 −$4764 to $4033]). EXTRAS provided more Quality Adjusted Life Years (0.07 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.12]). At current conventional thresholds of willingness to pay (£20 000 [$28 940] per Quality Adjusted Life Years), there was a 90% chance that EXTRAS could be considered cost-effective. EXTRAS did not significantly improve stroke survivors’ performance in extended activities of daily living. However, given the impact on costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years, EXTRAS may be an affordable addition to improve stroke care. URL: www.isrctn.com . Unique identifier: ISRCTN45203373.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 19-06-2020
DOI: 10.1186/S12889-020-09113-6
Abstract: Stroke survivors are more sedentary than healthy, age-matched controls, independent of functional capacity. Interventions are needed to encourage a reduction in overall sedentary time, and regular breaks in prolonged periods of sedentary behaviour. This study captured the views and experiences of stroke survivors and their caregivers related to sedentary behaviour after stroke, to inform the development of an intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour. Mixed-methods qualitative study. Non-participant observations were completed in two stroke services, inclusive of inpatient and community settings in the United Kingdom. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with stroke survivors and their caregivers (if available) at six- or nine-months post-stroke. Underpinned by the capability, opportunity and motivation (COM-B) model of behaviour change, observational data (132 h) were analysed thematically and interview data ( n = 31 stroke survivors, n = 12 caregivers) were analysed using the Framework approach. Observation participants differed in functional ability whereas stroke survivor interviewees were all ambulant. Six themes related to sedentary behaviour after stroke were generated: (1) sedentary behaviour levels and patterns after stroke (2) the physical and social environment in the stroke service and in the home (3) standing and movement capability after stroke (4) emotion and motivation after stroke (5) caregivers’ influence on, and role in influencing stroke survivors’ sedentary behaviour and (6) intervening to reduce sedentary behaviour after stroke. Capability, opportunity and motivation were influenced by the impact of the stroke and caregivers’ inclination to support sedentary behaviour reduction. Stroke survivors reported being more sedentary than they were pre-stroke due to impaired balance and co-ordination, increased fatigue, and reduced confidence in mobilising. Caregivers inclination to support stroke survivors to reduce sedentary behaviour depended on factors including their willingness to withdraw from the caregiver role, and their perception of whether the stroke survivor would act on their encouragement. Many stroke survivors indicate being open to reducing sedentary behaviour, with appropriate support from stroke service staff and caregivers. The findings from this study have contributed to an intervention development process using the Behaviour Change Wheel (BCW) approach to develop strategies to reduce sedentary behaviour after stroke.
Publisher: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Date: 17-10-2007
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 09-2016
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2016-012027
Abstract: We are undertaking a randomised controlled trial (fAmily led rehabiliTaTion aftEr stroke in INDia, ATTEND) evaluating training a family carer to enable maximal rehabilitation of patients with stroke-related disability as a potentially affordable, culturally acceptable and effective intervention for use in India. A process evaluation is needed to understand how and why this complex intervention may be effective, and to capture important barriers and facilitators to its implementation. We describe the protocol for our process evaluation to encourage the development of in-process evaluation methodology and transparency in reporting. The realist and RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance) frameworks informed the design. Mixed methods include semistructured interviews with health providers, patients and their carers, analysis of quantitative process data describing fidelity and dose of intervention, observations of trial set up and implementation, and the analysis of the cost data from the patients and their families perspective and programme budgets. These qualitative and quantitative data will be analysed iteratively prior to knowing the quantitative outcomes of the trial, and then triangulated with the results from the primary outcome evaluation. The process evaluation has received ethical approval for all sites in India. In low-income and middle-income countries, the available human capital can form an approach to reducing the evidence practice gap, compared with the high cost alternatives available in established market economies. This process evaluation will provide insights into how such a programme can be implemented in practice and brought to scale. Through local stakeholder engagement and dissemination of findings globally we hope to build on patient-centred, cost-effective and sustainable models of stroke rehabilitation. CTRI/2013/04/003557.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 10-2013
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 22-10-2016
Abstract: In low- and middle-income countries, few patients receive organized rehabilitation after stroke, yet the burden of chronic diseases such as stroke is increasing in these countries. Affordable models of effective rehabilitation could have a major impact. The ATTEND trial is evaluating a family-led caregiver delivered rehabilitation program after stroke. To publish the detailed statistical analysis plan for the ATTEND trial prior to trial unblinding. Based upon the published registration and protocol, the blinded steering committee and management team, led by the trial statistician, have developed a statistical analysis plan. The plan has been informed by the chosen outcome measures, the data collection forms and knowledge of key baseline data. The resulting statistical analysis plan is consistent with best practice and will allow open and transparent reporting. Publication of the trial statistical analysis plan reduces potential bias in trial reporting, and clearly outlines pre-specified analyses. India CTRI/2013/04/003557 Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN1261000078752 Universal Trial Number U1111-1138-6707.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 25-07-2018
Abstract: Training family carers to provide evidence-based rehabilitation to stroke patients could address the recognized deficiency of access to stroke rehabilitation in low-resource settings. However, our randomized controlled trial in India (ATTEND) found that this model of care was not superior to usual care alone. This process evaluation aimed to better understand trial outcomes through assessing trial implementation and exploring patients’, carers’, and providers’ perspectives. Our mixed methods study included process, healthcare use data and patient demographics from all sites observations and semi-structured interviews with participants (22 patients, 22 carers, and 28 health providers) from six s led sites. Intervention fidelity and adherence to the trial protocol was high across the 14 sites however, early supported discharge (an intervention component) was not implemented. Within both randomized groups, some form of rehabilitation was widely accessed. ATTEND stroke coordinators provided counseling and perceived that sustaining patients’ motivation to continue with rehabilitation in the face of significant emotional and financial stress as a key challenge. The intervention was perceived as an acceptable community-based package with education as an important component in raising the poor awareness of stroke. Many participants viewed family-led rehabilitation as a necessary model of care for poor and rural populations who could not access rehabilitation. Difficulty in sustaining patient and carer motivation for rehabilitation without ongoing support, and greater than anticipated access to routine rehabilitation may explain the lack of benefit in the trial. Nonetheless, family-led rehabilitation was seen as a concept worthy of further development.
Publisher: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Date: 29-05-2021
DOI: 10.1101/2021.05.27.21256673
Abstract: Sedentary behaviour has been the focus of considerable clinical, policy and research interest due to its detrimental effects on health and wellbeing. This systematic review aims to (1) develop a more precise description of different categories of interventions that aim to reduce sedentary time in adults by identifying specific components that form an intervention (2) explore the effect of different categories of interventions in reducing time spent sedentary in adults. Ten electronic databases, websites of relevant organisations (e.g. the Sedentary Behaviour Research Network), and relevant reviews were searched. Inclusion criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster and randomised cross-over trials, in the adult population (clinical and non-clinical). Any study including a measure of sedentary behaviour was included even if reducing sedentary behaviour was not the primary aim. Exclusion criteria: Interventions delivered in schools, colleges, or workplaces studies investigating the immediate effects of breaking up sitting time as part of a supervised (usually laboratory-based) intervention. Two review authors conducted data extraction and quality assessment (GRADE approach). Searches identified 39,223 records, of which 85 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Interventions shown to significantly reduce time spent sedentary were those which incorporated the provision of information, education, or support (advice/recommendations), in conjunction with either counselling (mean difference: -52.24 minutes/day 95% CI: -85.37 to -19.10) or a form of structured rescribed physical activity (standardised mean difference: -0.15 95% CI: -0.23 to -0.07). However, this positive effect was not maintained at follow-up. No interventions were shown to break up prolonged sitting. This review presents a novel way of categorising interventions according to the types of components they comprised. There is evidence that interventions might be effective in reducing time spent sedentary immediately post-intervention. There were limited studies measuring sustained behaviour change.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 07-01-2016
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 2022
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2021-053945
Abstract: To systematically review and synthesise findings from process evaluations of interventions in trials which measured sedentary behaviour as an outcome in adults to explore: (1) how intervention content, implementation, mechanisms of impact and context influence outcomes and (2) how these interventions are experienced from different perspectives (participants, carers, staff). Systematic review and narrative synthesis underpinned by the Medical Research Council process evaluation framework. Databases searches were conducted in March 2019 then updated in May 2020 and October 2021 in: CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, AMED EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, Web of Science and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. We included: Process evaluations of trials including interventions where sedentary behaviour was measured as an outcome in adults aged 16 or over from clinical or non-clinical populations. We excluded studies if interventions were delivered in educational or workplace settings, or if they were laboratory studies focused on immediate effects of breaking sitting. Two independent reviewers extracted and coded data into a framework and assessed the quality of studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We synthesised findings using a narrative approach. 17 process evaluations were included. Five interventions focused on reducing sedentary behaviour or sitting time, 12 aimed to increase physical activity or promote healthier lifestyles. Process evaluations indicated changes in sedentary behaviour outcomes were shaped by numerous factors including: barriers (eg, staffing difficulties and scheduling problems) and facilitators (eg, allowing for flexibility) to intervention delivery contextual factors (eg, usual lifestyle and religious events) and in idual factors (eg, pain, tiredness, illness, age and in idual preferences). Intervention requires careful consideration of different factors that could influence changes in sedentary behaviour outcomes to ensure that interventions can be tailored to suit different in iduals and groups. CRD42018087403.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 13-08-2019
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 05-05-2015
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 07-2023
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2023-074607
Abstract: Sedentary behaviour (sitting or lying during waking hours without being otherwise active) is strongly associated with adverse health outcomes, including all-cause, cancer and cardiovascular mortality in adults. Stroke survivors are consistently reported as being more sedentary than healthy age-matched controls, spending more hours sedentary daily and sustaining longer unbroken bouts of sedentary time. An evidence-based and clinically feasible intervention (‘Get Set Go’) was developed. A pragmatic definitive trial to evaluate Get Set Go was planned however, due to the unprecedented effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on National Health Service (NHS) services this study was reduced in size and scope to become an external pilot trial. We report the protocol for this external pilot trial, which aims to undertake a preliminary exploration of whether Get Set Go is likely to improve ability to complete extended activities of daily living in the first year post-stroke and inform future trial designs in stroke rehabilitation. This study is a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations. UK-based stroke services will be randomised 1:1 to the intervention (usual care plus Get Set Go) or control (usual care) arm. Fifteen stroke services will recruit 300–400 stroke inpatient and carer participants, with follow-up at 6, 12 and 24 months. The proposed primary endpoint is stroke survivor self-reported Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale at 12 months. Endpoint analyses will be exploratory and provide preliminary estimates of intervention effect. The process evaluation will provide valuable information on intervention fidelity, acceptability and how it can be optimised. The study has been approved by Yorkshire and The Humber – Bradford-Leeds Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 19/YH/0403). Results will be disseminated through journal publications and conference presentations. This trial was registered prospectively on 01 April 2020 (ISRCTN ref: ISRCTN82280581 ).
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 17-08-2016
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 08-2017
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2021
Publisher: Medical Journals Sweden AB
Date: 2010
Abstract: To determine if repetitive task training after stroke improves functional activity. Systematic review and meta-analysis of trials comparing repetitive task training with attention control or usual care. The Cochrane Stroke Trials Register, electronic databases of published, unpublished and non-English language papers conference proceedings, reference lists, and trial authors. Included studies were randomized/quasi-randomized trials in adults after stroke where an active motor sequence aiming to improve functional activity was performed repetitively within a single training session. We used Cochrane Collaboration methods, resources, and software. We included 14 trials with 17 intervention-control pairs and 659 participants. Results were statistically significant for walking distance (mean difference 54.6, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 17.5, 91.7) walking speed (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.29, 95% CI 0.04, 0.53) sit-to-stand (standard effect estimate 0.35, 95% CI 0.13, 0.56), and activities of daily living: SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07, 0.51 and of borderline statistical significance for measures of walking ability (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.00, 0.51), and global motor function (SMD 0.32, 95% CI -0.01, 0.66). There were no statistically significant differences for hand/arm functional activity, lower limb functional activity scales, or sitting/standing balance/reach. Repetitive task training resulted in modest improvement across a range of lower limb outcome measures, but not upper limb outcome measures. Training may be sufficient to have a small impact on activities of daily living. Interventions involving elements of repetition and task training are erse and difficult to classify: the results presented are specific to trials where both elements are clearly present in the intervention, without major confounding by other potential mechanisms of action.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 02-2019
DOI: 10.1136/BMJOPEN-2019-031291
Abstract: Sedentary behaviour is defined as any waking behaviour characterised by low energy expenditure ≤1.5 metabolic equivalents while in a sitting, lying or reclining posture. The expanding evidence base suggests that sedentary behaviour may have a detrimental effect on health, well-being and is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. We aim to review process evaluations of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which included a measure of sedentary behaviour in adults in order to develop an understanding of intervention content, mechanisms of impact, implementation and delivery approaches and contexts, in which interventions were reported to be effective or effective. A secondary aim is to summarise participants, family and staff experiences of such interventions. Ten electronic databases and reference lists from previous similar reviews will be searched. Eligible studies will be process evaluations of RCTs that measure sedentary behaviour as a primary or secondary outcome in adults. As this review will contribute to a programme to develop a community-based intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in stroke survivors, interventions delivered in schools, colleges, universities or workplaces will be excluded. Two reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Disagreements between reviewers will be resolved by a third reviewer. Process evaluation data to be extracted include the aims and methods used in the process evaluation implementation data mechanisms of impact contextual factors participant, family and staff experiences of the interventions. A narrative approach will be used to synthesise and report qualitative and quantitative data. Reporting of the review will be informed by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidance. Ethical approval is not required as it is a protocol for a systematic review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. CRD42018087403.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 17-08-2020
DOI: 10.1186/S40814-020-00667-1
Abstract: Stroke survivors are highly sedentary thus, breaking up long uninterrupted bouts of sedentary behaviour could have substantial health benefit. However, there are no intervention strategies specifically aimed at reducing sedentary behaviour tailored for stroke survivors. The purpose of this study was to use co-production approaches to develop an intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour after stroke. A series of five co-production workshops with stroke survivors, their caregivers, stroke service staff, exercise professionals, and researchers were conducted in parallel in two-stroke services (England and Scotland). Workshop format was informed by the behaviour change wheel (BCW) framework for developing interventions and incorporated systematic review and empirical evidence. Taking an iterative approach, data from activities and audio recordings were analysed following each workshop and findings used to inform subsequent workshops, to inform both the activities of the next workshop and ongoing intervention development. Co-production workshop participants ( n = 43) included 17 staff, 14 stroke survivors, six caregivers and six researchers. The target behaviour for stroke survivors is to increase standing and moving, and the target behaviour for caregivers and staff is to support and encourage stroke survivors to increase standing and moving. The developed intervention is primarily based on co-produced solutions to barriers to achieving the target behaviour. The developed intervention includes 34 behaviour change techniques. The intervention is to be delivered through stroke services, commencing in the inpatient setting and following through discharge into the community. Participants reported that taking part in intervention development was a positive experience. To our knowledge, this is the first study that has combined the use of co-production and the BCW to develop an intervention for use in stroke care. In-depth reporting of how a co-production approach was combined with the BCW framework, including the design of bespoke materials for workshop activities, should prove useful to other researchers and practitioners involved in intervention development in stroke.
Publisher: National Institute for Health and Care Research
Date: 05-2020
DOI: 10.3310/HTA24240
Abstract: There is limited evidence about the effectiveness of rehabilitation in meeting the longer-term needs of stroke patients and their carers. To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS). A pragmatic, observer-blind, parallel-group, multicentre randomised controlled trial with embedded health economic and process evaluations. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) to receive EXTRAS or usual care. Nineteen NHS study centres. Patients with a new stroke who received early supported discharge and their informal carers. Five EXTRAS reviews provided by an early supported discharge team member between 1 and 18 months post early supported discharge, usually over the telephone. Reviewers assessed rehabilitation needs, with goal-setting and action-planning. Control treatment was usual care post early supported discharge. The primary outcome was performance in extended activities of daily living (Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale) at 24 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes at 12 and 24 months included patient mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), health status (Oxford Handicap Scale), experience of services and adverse events. For carers, secondary outcomes included carers’ strain (Caregiver Strain Index) and experience of services. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using resource utilisation costs (adaptation of the Client Service Receipt Inventory) and quality-adjusted life-years. A total of 573 patients (EXTRAS, n = 285 usual care, n = 288) with 194 carers (EXTRAS, n = 103 usual care, n = 91) were randomised. Mean 24-month Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale scores were 40.0 (standard deviation 18.1) for EXTRAS ( n = 219) and 37.2 (standard deviation 18.5) for usual care ( n = 231), giving an adjusted mean difference of 1.8 (95% confidence interval –0.7 to 4.2). The mean intervention group Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores were not significantly different at 12 and 24 months. The intervention did not improve patient health status or carer strain. EXTRAS patients and carers reported greater satisfaction with some aspects of care. The mean cost of resource utilisation was lower in the intervention group: –£311 (95% confidence interval –£3292 to £2787), with a 68% chance of EXTRAS being cost-saving. EXTRAS was associated with 0.07 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.12) additional quality-adjusted life-years. At current conventional thresholds of willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year, there is a 90% chance that EXTRAS is cost-effective. EXTRAS did not improve stroke survivors’ performance in extended activities of daily living but did improve their overall satisfaction with services. Given the impact on costs and quality-adjusted life-years, there is a high chance that EXTRAS could be considered cost-effective. Further research is required to identify whether or not community-based interventions can improve performance of extended activities of daily living, and to understand the improvements in health-related quality of life and costs seen by provision of intermittent longer-term specialist review. Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45203373. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment Vol. 24, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Anne Forster.