Does physical activity change following hip and knee replacement? Matched case-control study evaluating Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly data from the Osteoarthritis Initiative

Objectives: To determine whether physical activity measured using the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly (PASE), changes during the initial 24 months post-total hip (THR) or knee replacement (TKR), and how this compares to a matched non-arthroplasty cohort. Design: Case-controlled study analysis of a prospectively collected dataset. Setting: USA community-based. Participants: 116 people post-THR, 105 people post-TKR compared to 663 people who had not undergone THR or TKR, or had hip or knee osteoarthritis. Cohorts were age-, gender- and BMI-matched. Main outcome measures: Physical activity assessed using the 12-item PASE at 12 and 24 months post-operatively. Results: There was no significant difference in total PASE score between pre-operative to 12 months (mean: 136 vs. 135 points; p=0.86) or 24 months following THR (mean: 136 vs 132 points; p=0.95). Whilst there was no significant difference in total PASE score from pre-operative to 12 months post-TKR (126 vs. 121 points; p=0.93), by 24 months people following TKR reported significantly greater physical activity (126 vs. 142 points; p=0.04). There was no statistically significant difference in physical activity between the normative matched and THR (p≥0.14) or TKR (p≥0.06) cohorts at 12 or 24 months post-joint replacement. Conclusions: Physical activity is not appreciably different to pre-operative levels at 12 or 24 months post-THR, but was greater at 24 months following TKR. Health promotion strategies are needed to encourage greater physical activity participation following joint replacement, and particularly targeting those who undergo THR

The PD COMM trial: A protocol for the process evaluation of a randomised trial assessing the effectiveness of two types of SLT for people with Parkinson's disease

BACKGROUND: The PD COMM trial is a phase III multi-centre randomised controlled trial whose aim is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two approaches to speech and language therapy (SLT) compared with no SLT intervention (control) for people with Parkinson's disease who have self-reported or carer-reported problems with their speech or voice. Our protocol describes the process evaluation embedded within the outcome evaluation whose aim is to evaluate what happened at the time of the PD COMM intervention implementation and to provide findings that will assist in the interpretation of the PD COMM trial results. Furthermore, the aim of the PD COMM process evaluation is to investigate intervention complexity within a theoretical model of how the trialled interventions might work best and why. METHODS/DESIGN: Drawing from the Normalization Process Theory and frameworks for implementation fidelity, a mixed method design will be used to address process evaluation research questions. Therapists' and participants' perceptions and experiences will be investigated via in-depth interviews. Critical incident reports, baseline survey data from therapists, treatment record forms and home practice diaries also will be collected at relevant time points throughout the running of the PD COMM trial. Process evaluation data will be analysed independently of the outcome evaluation before the two sets of data are then combined. DISCUSSION: To date, there are a limited number of published process evaluation protocols, and few are linked to trials investigating rehabilitation therapies. Providing a strong theoretical framework underpinning design choices and being tailored to meet the complex characteristics of the trialled interventions, our process evaluation has the potential to provide valuable insight into which components of the interventions being delivered in PD COMM worked best (and what did not), how they worked well and why

Home-based Reach-to-Grasp training for people after stroke is feasible: A pilot randomised controlled trial

© The Author(s) 2016. Objective: To determine feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of home-based Reach-to-Grasp training after stroke. Design: single-blind parallel group RCT. Participants: Residual arm deficit less than 12 months post-stroke. Interventions: Reach-to-Grasp training in 14 one-hour therapist's visits over 6 weeks, plus one hour self-practice per day (total 56 hours). Control: Usual care. Main Measures: Action Research Arm Test (ARAT), Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT), pre-randomisation, 7, 12, 24 weeks post-randomisation. Results: Forty-seven participants (Reach-to-Grasp=24, usual care=23) were randomised over 17 months. Reach-to-Grasp participants received a median (IQR) 14 (13,14) visits, and performed 157 (96,211) repetitions per visit; plus 30 minutes (22,45) self-practice per day. Usual care participants received 10.5 (5,14) therapist visits, comprising 38.6 (30,45) minutes of arm therapy with 16 (6,24) repetitions of functional tasks per visit. Median ARAT scores in the reach-to-grasp group were 8.5 (3.0,24.0) at baseline and 14.5 (3.5,26.0) at 24 weeks compared to median of 4 at both time points (IQR: baseline (3.0,14.0), 24 weeks (3.0,30.0)) in the usual-care group. Median WMFT tasks completed at baseline and 24 weeks were 6 (3.0,11.5) and 8.5 (4.5,13.5) respectively in the reach-to-grasp group and 4 (3.0,10.0), 6 (3.0,14.0) in the usual care group. Incidence of arm pain was similar between groups. The study was stopped before 11 patients reached the 24 weeks assessment. Conclusions: An RCT of home-based Reach-to-Grasp training after stroke is feasible and safe. With ARAT being our preferred measure it is estimated that 240 participants will be needed for a future two armed trial

Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard speech and language therapy versus control in Parkinson’s disease: a pilot randomised controlled trial (PD COMM pilot)

Background: Speech-related problems are common in Parkinson’s disease (PD), but there is little evidence for the effectiveness of standard speech and language therapy (SLT) or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®). Methods: The PD COMM pilot was a three-arm, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) of LSVT LOUD®, SLT and no intervention (1:1:1 ratio) to assess the feasibility and to inform the design of a full-scale RCT. Non-demented patients with idiopathic PD and speech problems and no SLT for speech problems in the past 2 years were eligible. LSVT LOUD® is a standardised regime (16 sessions over 4 weeks). SLT comprised individualised content per local practice (typically weekly sessions for 6–8 weeks). Outcomes included recruitment and retention, treatment adherence, and data completeness. Outcome data collected at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months included patient-reported voice and quality of life measures, resource use, and assessor-rated speech recordings. Results: Eighty-nine patients were randomised with 90% in the therapy groups and 100% in the control group completing the trial. The response rate for Voice Handicap Index (VHI) in each arm was ≥ 90% at all time-points. VHI was highly correlated with the other speech-related outcome measures. There was a trend to improvement in VHI with LSVT LOUD® (difference at 3 months compared with control: − 12.5 points; 95% CI − 26.2, 1.2) and SLT (difference at 3 months compared with control: − 9.8 points; 95% CI − 23.2, 3.7) which needs to be confirmed in an adequately powered trial. Conclusion: Randomisation to a three-arm trial of speech therapy including a no intervention control is feasible and acceptable. Compliance with both interventions was good. VHI and other patient-reported outcomes were relevant measures and provided data to inform the sample size for a substantive trial

Dopamine Augmented Rehabilitation in Stroke (DARS): a multicentre double-blind, randomised controlled trial of co-careldopa compared with placebo, in addition to routine NHS occupational and physical therapy, delivered early after stroke on functional recovery

BACKGROUND: Dopamine is a key modulator of striatal function and learning, and may improve motor recovery after stroke. Seven small trials of dopamine agonists after stroke have provided equivocal evidence of the clinical effectiveness of dopamine agonists in improving motor recovery. DESIGN: Dopamine Augmented Rehabilitation in Stroke was a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial with stroke patients randomised to receive 6 weeks of co-careldopa (Sinemet®, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd) or placebo in combination with occupational and physical rehabilitation. METHODS: The primary outcome measure was the proportion of patients walking independently at 8 weeks [Rivermead Mobility Index (RMI) score of ≥ 7 points and ‘yes’ to item 7 on the RMI]. Secondary outcome measures assessed physical functioning, pain, cognition, mood, fatigue and carer burden at 8 weeks, 6 months and 12 months. RESULTS: Between May 2011 and March 2014, 593 patients (mean age 68.5 years) and 165 carers (mean age 59.7 years) were recruited from stroke rehabilitation units; 308 patients were randomised to co-careldopa and 285 to placebo at a median of 15 days following stroke onset. The study drug was to be taken 45–60 minutes before therapy, which included motor activities (mean 23.2 and 24.8 sessions in the co-careldopa and placebo groups, respectively). The mean number of investigational medicinal product doses taken was 20.6 in the co-careldopa group and 22.4 in the placebo group. Ability to walk independently was not improved at 8 weeks [40.6% (co-careldopa) vs. 44.6% (placebo); odds ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 1.15], 6 months [51.6% (co-careldopa) vs. 53.3% (placebo)] or 12 months [51.6% (co-careldopa) vs. 56.8% (placebo)]. There were no significant differences for Barthel Index, Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living, ABILHAND Manual Ability Measure or Modified Rankin Scale, pain or fatigue at any time point. Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores did not significantly differ; the majority of participants had cognitive impairment at baseline, which improved during 12 months’ follow-up. No difference was observed in General Health Questionnaire 12-item version scores between groups at 8 weeks and 12 months but, at 6 months, those in the co-careldopa group reported significantly better general health [mean difference (MD) –1.33, 95% CI –2.57 to –0.10]. Mortality at 12 months was not significantly different. Carers in the placebo group reported significantly greater burden at 6 months (MD 5.05, 95% CI 0.10 to 10.01) and 12 months (MD 7.52, 95% CI 1.87 to 13.18). CONCLUSION: Co-careldopa in addition to routine NHS occupational and physical therapy is not clinically effective or cost-effective in improving walking, physical functioning, mood or cognition following stroke. We recommend further research to develop imaging and clinical markers that would allow identification of promising drug therapies that would enhance motor therapy in improving walking ability and arm function. Further research is needed to compare strategies of giving drug therapy intermittently immediately prior to therapy sessions or as continuous background daily administration. LIMITATIONS: In total, 10.3% of patients were lost to follow-up at 8 weeks and < 10% of patients met the strict per-protocol definition. Despite this, the findings are robust and generalisable to patients with limited mobility in the first few weeks after stroke. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN99643613. FUNDING: This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership

Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of visual cue training to improve adaptability of walking after stroke : multi-centre, single-blind randomised control pilot trial

Objectives: Given the importance of vision in the control of walking and evidence indicating varied practice of walking improves mobility outcomes, this study sought to examine the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of varied walking practice in response to visual cues, for the rehabilitation of walking following stroke. Design: This 3 arm parallel, multi-centre, assessor blind, randomised control trial was conducted within outpatient neurorehabilitation services Participants Community dwelling stroke survivors with walking speed <0.8m/s, lower limb paresis and no severe visual impairments. Intervention: Over-ground visual cue training (O-VCT), Treadmill based visual cue training (T-VCT), and Usual care (UC) delivered by physiotherapists twice weekly for 8 weeks. Main outcome measures: Participants were randomised using computer generated random permutated balanced blocks of randomly varying size. Recruitment, retention, adherence, adverse events and mobility and balance were measured before randomisation, postintervention and at four weeks follow-up. Results: Fifty-six participants participated (18 T-VCT, 19 O-VCT, 19 UC). Thirty-four completed treatment and follow-up assessments. Of the participants that completed, adherence was good with 16 treatments provided over (median of) 8.4, 7.5 and 9 weeks for T-VCT, O-VCT and UC respectively. No adverse events were reported. Post-treatment improvements in walking speed, symmetry, balance and functional mobility were seen in all treatment arms. Conclusions: Outpatient based treadmill and over-ground walking adaptability practice using visual cues are feasible and may improve mobility and balance. Future studies should continue a carefully phased approach using identified methods to improve retention. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT0160039

In-reach specialist nursing teams for residential care homes : uptake of services, impact on care provision and cost-effectiveness

Background: A joint NHS-Local Authority initiative in England designed to provide a dedicated nursing and physiotherapy in-reach team (IRT) to four residential care homes has been evaluated.The IRT supported 131 residents and maintained 15 'virtual' beds for specialist nursing in these care homes. Methods: Data captured prospectively (July 2005 to June 2007) included: numbers of referrals; reason for referral; outcome (e.g. admission to IRT bed, short-term IRT support); length of stay in IRT; prevented hospital admissions; early hospital discharges; avoided nursing home transfers; and detection of unrecognised illnesses. An economic analysis was undertaken. Results: 733 referrals were made during the 2 years (range 0.5 to 13.0 per resident per annum)resulting in a total of 6,528 visits. Two thirds of referrals aimed at maintaining the resident's independence in the care home. According to expert panel assessment, 197 hospital admissions were averted over the period; 20 early discharges facilitated; and 28 resident transfers to a nursing home prevented. Detection of previously unrecognised illnesses accounted for a high number of visits. Investment in IRT equalled £44.38 per resident per week. Savings through reduced hospital admissions, early discharges, delayed transfers to nursing homes, and identification of previously unrecognised illnesses are conservatively estimated to produce a final reduction in care cost of £6.33 per resident per week. A sensitivity analysis indicates this figure might range from a weekly overall saving of £36.90 per resident to a 'worst case' estimate of £2.70 extra expenditure per resident per week. Evaluation early in implementation may underestimate some cost-saving activities and greater savings may emerge over a longer time period. Similarly, IRT costs may reduce over time due to the potential for refinement of team without major loss in effectiveness. Conclusion: Introduction of a specialist nursing in-reach team for residential homes is at least cost neutral and, in all probability, cost saving. Further benefits include development of new skills in the care home workforce and enhanced quality of care. Residents are enabled to stay in familiar surroundings rather than unnecessarily spending time in hospital or being transferred to a higher dependency nursing home setting

Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard speech and language therapy versus control in Parkinson's disease: a pilot randomised controlled trial (PD COMM pilot)

Background: Speech-related problems are common in Parkinson's disease (PD), but there is little evidence for the effectiveness of standard speech and language therapy (SLT) or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®). Methods: The PD COMM pilot was a three-arm, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) of LSVT LOUD®, SLT and no intervention (1:1:1 ratio) to assess the feasibility and to inform the design of a full-scale RCT. Non-demented patients with idiopathic PD and speech problems and no SLT for speech problems in the past 2 years were eligible. LSVT LOUD® is a standardised regime (16 sessions over 4 weeks). SLT comprised individualised content per local practice (typically weekly sessions for 6-8 weeks). Outcomes included recruitment and retention, treatment adherence, and data completeness. Outcome data collected at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months included patient-reported voice and quality of life measures, resource use, and assessor-rated speech recordings. Results: Eighty-nine patients were randomised with 90% in the therapy groups and 100% in the control group completing the trial. The response rate for Voice Handicap Index (VHI) in each arm was ≥ 90% at all time-points. VHI was highly correlated with the other speech-related outcome measures. There was a trend to improvement in VHI with LSVT LOUD® (difference at 3 months compared with control: - 12.5 points; 95% CI - 26.2, 1.2) and SLT (difference at 3 months compared with control: - 9.8 points; 95% CI - 23.2, 3.7) which needs to be confirmed in an adequately powered trial. Conclusion: Randomisation to a three-arm trial of speech therapy including a no intervention control is feasible and acceptable. Compliance with both interventions was good. VHI and other patient-reported outcomes were relevant measures and provided data to inform the sample size for a substantive trial. Trial registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register: ISRCTN75223808. registered 22 March 2012

Research Exploring Physical Activity in Care Homes (REACH): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Background: As life expectancy increases and the number of older people, particularly those aged 85 years and over, expands there is an increase in demand for long-term care. A large proportion of people in a care home setting spend most of their time sedentary, and this is one of the leading preventable causes of death. Encouraging residents to engage in more physical activity could deliver benefits in terms of physical and psychological health, and quality of life. This study is the final stage of a programme of research to develop and preliminarily test an evidence-based intervention designed to enhance opportunities for movement amongst care home residents, thereby increasing levels of physical activity. Methods/design: This is a cluster randomised feasibility trial, aiming to recruit at least 8–12 residents at each of 12 residential care homes across Yorkshire, UK. Care homes will be randomly allocated on a 1:1 basis to receive either the intervention alongside usual care, or to continue to provide usual care alone. Assessment will be undertaken with participating residents at baseline (prior to care home randomisation) and at 3, 6, and 9 months post-randomisation. Data relating to changes in physical activity, physical function, level of cognitive impairment, mood, perceived health and wellbeing, and quality of life will be collected. Data at the level of the home will also be collected and will include staff experience of care, and changes in the numbers and types of adverse events residents experience (for example, hospital admissions, falls). Details of National Health Service (NHS) usage will be collected to inform the economic analysis. An embedded process evaluation will obtain information to test out the theory of change underpinning the intervention and its acceptability to staff and residents. Discussion: This feasibility trial with embedded process evaluation and collection of health economic data will allow us to undertake detailed feasibility work to inform a future large-scale trial. It will provide valuable information to inform research procedures in this important but challenging area

Effective health care for older people living and dying in care homes: A realist review

Background: Care home residents in England have variable access to health care services. There is currently no coherent policy or consensus about the best arrangements to meet these needs. The purpose of this review was to explore the evidence for how different service delivery models for care home residents support and/or improve wellbeing and health-related outcomes in older people living and dying in care homes. Methods: We conceptualised models of health care provision to care homes as complex interventions. We used a realist review approach to develop a preliminary understanding of what supported good health care provision to care homes. We completed a scoping of the literature and interviewed National Health Service and Local Authority commissioners, providers of services to care homes, representatives from the Regulator, care home managers, residents and their families. We used these data to develop theoretical propositions to be tested in the literature to explain why an intervention may be effective in some situations and not others. We searched electronic databases and related grey literature. Finally the findings were reviewed with an external advisory group. Results: Strategies that support and sustain relational working between care home staff and visiting health care professionals explained the observed differences in how health care interventions were accepted and embedded into care home practice. Actions that encouraged visiting health care professionals and care home staff jointly to identify, plan and implement care home appropriate protocols for care, when supported by ongoing facilitation from visiting clinicians, were important. Contextual factors such as financial incentives or sanctions, agreed protocols, clinical expertise and structured approaches to assessment and care planning could support relational working to occur, but of themselves appeared insufficient to achieve change. Conclusion: How relational working is structured between health and care home staff is key to whether health service interventions achieve health related outcomes for residents and their respective organisations. The belief that either paying clinicians to do more in care homes and/or investing in training of care home staff is sufficient for better outcomes was not supported.This research was funded by National Institute of Health Research Health Service Delivery and Research programme (HSDR 11/021/02)