An extended stroke rehabilitation service for people who have had a stroke: the EXTRAS RCT.
COMMUNITY SERVICES
EARLY SUPPORTED DISCHARGE
HEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATION
PROCESS EVALUATION
RANDOMISED CONTROLLED TRIAL
REHABILITATION
STROKE
TELEPHONE REVIEW
Journal
Health technology assessment (Winchester, England)
ISSN: 2046-4924
Titre abrégé: Health Technol Assess
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9706284
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2020
05 2020
Historique:
entrez:
30
5
2020
pubmed:
30
5
2020
medline:
14
9
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
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, 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 Early supported discharge enables stroke patients with mild or moderate disability to be discharged earlier than usual from hospital to continue rehabilitation at home. Randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that early supported discharge leads to increased independence for stroke survivors, and that early supported discharge is cost-effective. Early supported discharge is usually provided for up to 6 weeks and patients with ongoing physical, psychological or social needs are then referred to other services. In the UK, provision of longer-term rehabilitation is often limited. Lack of research evidence has meant that service development in this aspect of stroke care has lagged behind service development for acute care. This clinical trial evaluated an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS) that started when early supported discharge ended. Stroke survivors and their carers were randomly assigned to receive EXTRAS or usual NHS care. EXTRAS involved five rehabilitation reviews conducted over 18 months by an early supported discharge team member, usually over the telephone. Each review consisted of an assessment of current needs, goal-setting and action-planning, and sought to improve patients’ abilities and confidence to undertake extended activities of daily living (mobility, kitchen and domestic tasks, and leisure activities). There were no specific assessments or actions for carers but it was important to evaluate the impact that the new service had on carers. Patients and carers were followed up for 2 years and information was collected about their activities, mood, quality of life and services received. EXTRAS did not improve stroke survivors’ performance in extended activities of daily living. However, patients who received EXTRAS reported less anxiety and less depression than those who received usual care, and patients and carers were more satisfied with some aspects of their care. EXTRAS did not improve carers’ quality of life or stress. Health economic analyses suggest that EXTRAS improved patients’ quality of life and may be good value for money. Further research is needed to identify other treatments to address the longer-term consequences of stroke.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
There is limited evidence about the effectiveness of rehabilitation in meeting the longer-term needs of stroke patients and their carers.
OBJECTIVE
To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS).
DESIGN
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.
SETTING
Nineteen NHS study centres.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients with a new stroke who received early supported discharge and their informal carers.
INTERVENTIONS
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.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES
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.
RESULTS
A total of 573 patients (EXTRAS,
CONCLUSIONS
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.
FUTURE WORK
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.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45203373.
FUNDING
This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in
Early supported discharge enables stroke patients with mild or moderate disability to be discharged earlier than usual from hospital to continue rehabilitation at home. Randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that early supported discharge leads to increased independence for stroke survivors, and that early supported discharge is cost-effective. Early supported discharge is usually provided for up to 6 weeks and patients with ongoing physical, psychological or social needs are then referred to other services. In the UK, provision of longer-term rehabilitation is often limited. Lack of research evidence has meant that service development in this aspect of stroke care has lagged behind service development for acute care. This clinical trial evaluated an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS) that started when early supported discharge ended. Stroke survivors and their carers were randomly assigned to receive EXTRAS or usual NHS care. EXTRAS involved five rehabilitation reviews conducted over 18 months by an early supported discharge team member, usually over the telephone. Each review consisted of an assessment of current needs, goal-setting and action-planning, and sought to improve patients’ abilities and confidence to undertake extended activities of daily living (mobility, kitchen and domestic tasks, and leisure activities). There were no specific assessments or actions for carers but it was important to evaluate the impact that the new service had on carers. Patients and carers were followed up for 2 years and information was collected about their activities, mood, quality of life and services received. EXTRAS did not improve stroke survivors’ performance in extended activities of daily living. However, patients who received EXTRAS reported less anxiety and less depression than those who received usual care, and patients and carers were more satisfied with some aspects of their care. EXTRAS did not improve carers’ quality of life or stress. Health economic analyses suggest that EXTRAS improved patients’ quality of life and may be good value for money. Further research is needed to identify other treatments to address the longer-term consequences of stroke.
Autres résumés
Type: plain-language-summary
(eng)
Early supported discharge enables stroke patients with mild or moderate disability to be discharged earlier than usual from hospital to continue rehabilitation at home. Randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that early supported discharge leads to increased independence for stroke survivors, and that early supported discharge is cost-effective. Early supported discharge is usually provided for up to 6 weeks and patients with ongoing physical, psychological or social needs are then referred to other services. In the UK, provision of longer-term rehabilitation is often limited. Lack of research evidence has meant that service development in this aspect of stroke care has lagged behind service development for acute care. This clinical trial evaluated an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS) that started when early supported discharge ended. Stroke survivors and their carers were randomly assigned to receive EXTRAS or usual NHS care. EXTRAS involved five rehabilitation reviews conducted over 18 months by an early supported discharge team member, usually over the telephone. Each review consisted of an assessment of current needs, goal-setting and action-planning, and sought to improve patients’ abilities and confidence to undertake extended activities of daily living (mobility, kitchen and domestic tasks, and leisure activities). There were no specific assessments or actions for carers but it was important to evaluate the impact that the new service had on carers. Patients and carers were followed up for 2 years and information was collected about their activities, mood, quality of life and services received. EXTRAS did not improve stroke survivors’ performance in extended activities of daily living. However, patients who received EXTRAS reported less anxiety and less depression than those who received usual care, and patients and carers were more satisfied with some aspects of their care. EXTRAS did not improve carers’ quality of life or stress. Health economic analyses suggest that EXTRAS improved patients’ quality of life and may be good value for money. Further research is needed to identify other treatments to address the longer-term consequences of stroke.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32468989
doi: 10.3310/hta24240
pmc: PMC7294395
doi:
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN45203373']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Pragmatic Clinical Trial
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1-202Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K02325X/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 10/37/01
Pays : United Kingdom
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Gary A Ford declares personal fees from AstraZeneca (Cambridge, UK), Bayer AG (Leverkusen, Germany), Medtronic (Dublin, Ireland), Pfizer (New York, NY, USA), Pulse Therapeutics Euphrates Vascular (St Louis, MO, USA), Stryker Corporation (Kalamazoo, MI, USA) and Amgen (Thousand Oaks, CA, USA), and grants from Daiichi Sankyo (Tokyo, Japan), Medtronic and Pfizer outside the submitted work. Anne Forster declares grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and The Stroke Association (London, UK) outside the submitted work. She reports membership of the Health Services and Delivery Research (HSDR) Researcher-led Prioritisation Committee. Denise Howel was a member of the NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research panel (2016 to present) and NIHR HSDR Commissioning Board (2012–15) during this research project. Luke Vale was a member the NIHR Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Clinical Evaluation and Trials panel (2014–18) during this research project. Helen Rodgers declares fees from Bayer and that during this research project she was a member of the British Association of Stroke Physicians (president) (2014–17), NIHR HTA Clinical Evaluation and Trials Board (2010–14), Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party (2002 to present), National Stroke Programme (chairperson of rehabilitation and ongoing care working group) (2018 to present) Joint Stroke Medicine Committee Royal College of Physicians London (chairperson) (2018 to present) and Steering Group member VISTA (Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive) (2015 to present).
Références
Qual Life Res. 2005 Aug;14(6):1523-32
pubmed: 16110932
Scott Med J. 1957 May;2(5):200-15
pubmed: 13432835
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 22;(8):CD010442
pubmed: 27545611
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 May 12;(5):CD005066
pubmed: 20464736
Stroke. 1989 Jun;20(6):828
pubmed: 2728057
Implement Sci. 2013 Aug 23;8:96
pubmed: 23972027
Clin Rehabil. 2001 Feb;15(1):42-52
pubmed: 11237160
Qual Life Res. 2011 Mar;20(2):287-300
pubmed: 20882358
J Med Internet Res. 2018 Jun 08;20(6):e201
pubmed: 29884608
Health Soc Care Community. 1999 Jul;7(4):248-256
pubmed: 11560640
BMJ. 2010 Aug 20;341:c4093
pubmed: 20729270
Clin Rehabil. 1997 Nov;11(4):293-301
pubmed: 9408669
J Rehabil Med. 2015 Feb;47(2):107-19
pubmed: 25437308
SAGE Open Med. 2014 Aug 28;2:2050312114544493
pubmed: 26770733
Disabil Rehabil. 2007 Apr 15;29(7):559-66
pubmed: 17453976
Stroke. 2011 May;42(5):1392-7
pubmed: 21441151
Lancet. 2011 May 14;377(9778):1693-702
pubmed: 21571152
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 23;10(7):e0131448
pubmed: 26204266
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003;(1):CD002925
pubmed: 12535444
Stroke. 2011 May;42(5):1398-403
pubmed: 21441153
Lancet. 1991 Jun 22;337(8756):1521-6
pubmed: 1675378
Md State Med J. 1965 Feb;14:61-5
pubmed: 14258950
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004 Sep;58(9):788-93
pubmed: 15310806
Health Technol Assess. 2013 Oct;17(46):1-216
pubmed: 24153026
BMJ Open. 2015 May 05;5(5):e007413
pubmed: 25943372
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008 Apr 16;(2):CD005952
pubmed: 18425928
Clin Rehabil. 2006 Sep;20(9):756-72
pubmed: 17005500
Health Econ. 2018 Jan;27(1):7-22
pubmed: 28833869
Lancet Neurol. 2012 Mar;11(3):209
pubmed: 22341029
Br Med Bull. 2010;96:5-21
pubmed: 21037243
BMC Health Serv Res. 2006 Apr 19;6:52
pubmed: 16623946
Soc Sci Med. 2000 Feb;50(4):495-506
pubmed: 10641802
Clin Rehabil. 2013 Aug;27(8):741-9
pubmed: 23405023
BMJ. 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258
pubmed: 25791983
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 13;(3):CD010200
pubmed: 25767912
Int J Integr Care. 2012 Oct 01;12:e193
pubmed: 23593053
Fam Pract. 2006 Feb;23(1):131-6
pubmed: 16308328
Disabil Rehabil. 2013 Feb;35(3):177-90
pubmed: 22671934
BMJ. 2017 Aug 2;358:j3453
pubmed: 28768629
Qual Life Res. 2011 Dec;20(10):1727-36
pubmed: 21479777
BMJ. 2014 Mar 07;348:g1687
pubmed: 24609605
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361-70
pubmed: 6880820
Value Health. 2012 Jul-Aug;15(5):708-15
pubmed: 22867780
Health Econ. 2005 May;14(5):487-96
pubmed: 15497198
Stroke. 2019 Dec;50(12):3561-3568
pubmed: 31637972
Pharmacoeconomics. 2014 Dec;32(12):1157-70
pubmed: 25069632
J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2011 Feb;82(2):136-43
pubmed: 20826872
Stroke. 2009 Jan;40(1):24-9
pubmed: 19008473
Disabil Rehabil. 2016 Oct;38(20):2000-7
pubmed: 26733052
Trials. 2015 May 05;16:205
pubmed: 25939584
Stroke. 2015 Mar;46(3):893-8
pubmed: 25649798
BMJ Open. 2011 Jan 1;1(2):e000269
pubmed: 22021893
PLoS One. 2018 Feb 21;13(2):e0192533
pubmed: 29466383
Clin Rehabil. 2018 Aug;32(8):1119-1132
pubmed: 29582712
J Neurol. 1996 Feb;243(2):201-4
pubmed: 8750561
Stroke. 1988 May;19(5):604-7
pubmed: 3363593
BMJ. 2013 Mar 25;346:f1049
pubmed: 23529982
Chronic Illn. 2012 Mar;8(1):31-44
pubmed: 22025770
Age Ageing. 1972 Nov;1(4):233-8
pubmed: 4669880
Health Technol Assess. 2017 Jun;21(37):1-132
pubmed: 28681717
BMJ. 2011 Oct 18;343:d5928
pubmed: 22008217
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 11;(9):CD000197
pubmed: 24026639
Ann Intern Med. 2013 Feb 5;158(3):200-7
pubmed: 23295957
Stroke. 1989 Jul;20(7):864-70
pubmed: 2749846
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 13;7:CD000443
pubmed: 28703869
PLoS One. 2014 Feb 04;9(2):e87987
pubmed: 24505342
BMJ Open. 2017 Apr 3;7(4):e014109
pubmed: 28373253
BMJ. 2004 May 8;328(7448):1102
pubmed: 15130978
BMJ Open. 2014 Apr 15;4(4):e004473
pubmed: 24736035
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Jun 1;152(11):726-32
pubmed: 20335313
Clin Rehabil. 2011 May;25(5):468-82
pubmed: 21131335
BMJ. 2000 Dec 2;321(7273):1362-3
pubmed: 11099268
BMJ Open. 2016 Jan 06;6(1):e008900
pubmed: 26739723
Stroke. 2015 Aug;46(8):2212-9
pubmed: 26152298
J Gerontol. 1983 May;38(3):344-8
pubmed: 6841931