Incidence and severity of shoulder pain does not increase with the use of circuit class therapy during inpatient stroke rehabilitation: a controlled trial

QuestionsDoes circuit class therapy result in a greater incidence or severity of shoulder pain compared with individual therapy? Is the incidence influenced by the degree of active shoulder control?DesignControlled trial with intention-totreat analysis.ParticipantsSixty-eight people (6 drop-outs) undergoing inpatient rehabilitation after stroke.InterventionParticipants received either individual therapy or group circuit class therapy.Outcome measuresIncidence of shoulder pain over the previous 24 hours was measured as a yes/no response while severity of shoulder pain was measured using a visual analogue scale at admission, Week 4, and discharge.ResultsThere was no greater chance of participants receiving circuit class therapy having shoulder pain at Week 4 (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.80) or discharge (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.45) than participants receiving individual therapy. Of those participants who reported pain, there was no difference between groups in the severity of pain at Week 4 (mean difference –0.2 cm, 95% CI –3.2 to 2.7) or discharge (mean difference –2.1 cm, 95% CI –4.8 to 0.6). There was a greater chance of participants who had no active shoulder control having shoulder pain at Week 4 (OR 5.8, 95% CI 1.6 to 20.4) and at discharge (OR 3.8, 95% CI 1.0 to 13.9) than participants who had active shoulder control.ConclusionThe incidence and severity of shoulder pain was influenced by degree of active shoulder control but not by type of physiotherapy service delivery. Concerns regarding shoulder pain should not be a barrier to the implementation of circuit class therapy during inpatient stroke rehabilitation

How Physically Active Are People with Stroke in Physiotherapy Sessions Aimed at Improving Motor Function? A Systematic Review

Background. Targeted physical activity drives functional recovery after stroke. This review aimed to determine the amount of time stroke survivors spend physically active during physiotherapy sessions. Summary of Review. A systematic search was conducted to identify published studies that investigated the use of time by people with stroke during physiotherapy sessions. Seven studies were included; six observational and one randomised controlled trial. People with stroke were found to be physically active for an average of 60 percent of their physiotherapy session duration. The most common activities practiced in a physiotherapy session were walking, sitting, and standing with a mean (SD) practice time of 8.7 (4.3), 4.5 (4.0), and 8.3 (2.6) minutes, respectively. Conclusion. People with stroke were found to spend less than two-thirds of their physiotherapy sessions duration engaged in physical activity. In light of dosage studies, practice time may be insufficient to drive optimal motor recovery

The Feasibility of a Telehealth Exercise Program Aimed at Increasing Cardiorespiratory Fitness for People After Stroke

Background: Accessing suitable fitness programs post-stroke is difficult for many. The feasibility of telehealth delivery has not been previously reported.Objectives: To assess the feasibility of, and level of satisfaction with home-based telehealth-supervised aerobic exercise training post-stroke.Methods: Twenty-one ambulant participants (?3 months post-stroke) participated in a home-based telehealth-supervised aerobic exercise program (3 d/week, moderate-vigorous intensity, 8-weeks) and provided feedback via questionnaire postintervention. Session details, technical issues, and adverse events were also recorded.Results: Feasibility was high (83% of volunteers met telehealth eligibility criteria, 85% of sessions were conducted by telehealth, and 95% of participants rated usability favourably). Ninety-five percent enjoyed telehealth exercise sessions and would recommend them to others. The preferred telehealth exercise program parameters were: frequency 3 d/week, duration 20-30 min/session, program length 6-12 weeks.Conclusion: The telehealth delivery of exercise sessions to people after stroke appear

What is the effect of interrupting prolonged sitting with frequent bouts of physical activity or standing on first or recurrent stroke risk factors? A scoping review

The objective of this review was to ascertain the scope of the available literature on the effects of interrupting prolonged sitting time with frequent bouts of physical activity or standing on stroke and recurrent stroke risk factors. Databases Medline, Embase, AMED, CINAHL and Cochrane library were comprehensively searched from inception until 21st February 2018. Experimental trials which interrupted sitting time with frequent bouts of physical activity or standing in adults (≥ 18 years) were included. Comparison to a bout of prolonged sitting and a measure of at least one first or recurrent stroke risk factor was required to be included. Overall, 30 trials (35 articles) were identified to meet the inclusion criteria. Fifteen trials were completed in participants at an increased risk of having a first stroke and one trial in participants at risk of a recurrent stroke. Outcomes of hypertension and dysglycemia were found to be more favourable following predominately light- to moderate-intensity bouts of physical activity or standing compared to sitting in the majority of trials in participants at risk of having a first stroke. In the one trial of stroke survivors, only outcomes of hypertension were significantly improved. These findings are of significant importance taking into consideration hypertension is the leading risk factor for first and recurrent stroke. However, trials primarily focused on measuring outcomes of dysglycemia and without assessing a dose-response effect. Additional research is required on the dose-response effect of interrupting sitting with frequent bouts of physical activity or standing on first and recurrent stroke risk factors, in those high risk population groups

Interventions for reducing sedentary behaviour in people with stroke

BACKGROUND: Stroke survivors are often physically inactive as well as sedentary,and may sit for long periods of time each day. This increases cardiometabolic risk and has impacts on physical and other functions. Interventions to reduce or interrupt periods of sedentary time, as well as to increase physical activity after stroke, could reduce the risk of secondary cardiovascular events and mortality during life after stroke. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether interventions designed to reduce sedentary behaviour after stroke, or interventions with the potential to do so, can reduce the risk of death or secondary vascular events, modify cardiovascular risk, and reduce sedentary behaviour. SEARCH METHODS: In December 2019, we searched the Cochrane Stroke Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Conference Proceedings Citation Index, and PEDro. We also searched registers of ongoing trials, screened reference lists, and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing interventions to reduce sedentary time with usual care, no intervention, or waiting‐list control, attention control, sham intervention or adjunct intervention. We also included interventions intended to fragment or interrupt periods of sedentary behaviour. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and performed 'Risk of bias' assessments. We analyzed data using random‐effects meta‐analyses and assessed the certainty of the evidence with the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies with 753 people with stroke. Five studies used physical activity interventions, four studies used a multicomponent lifestyle intervention, and one study used an intervention to reduce and interrupt sedentary behaviour. In all studies, the risk of bias was high or unclear in two or more domains. Nine studies had high risk of bias in at least one domain. The interventions did not increase or reduce deaths (risk difference (RD) 0.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) ‐0.02 to 0.03; 10 studies, 753 participants; low‐certainty evidence), the incidence of recurrent cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (RD ‐0.01, 95% CI ‐0.04 to 0.01; 10 studies, 753 participants; low‐certainty evidence), the incidence of falls (and injuries) (RD 0.00, 95% CI ‐0.02 to 0.02; 10 studies, 753 participants; low‐certainty evidence), or incidence of other adverse events (moderate‐certainty evidence). Interventions did not increase or reduce the amount of sedentary behaviour time (mean difference (MD) +0.13 hours/day, 95% CI ‐0.42 to 0.68; 7 studies, 300 participants; very low‐certainty evidence). There were too few data to examine effects on patterns of sedentary behaviour. The effect of interventions on cardiometabolic risk factors allowed very limited meta‐analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Sedentary behaviour research in stroke seems important, yet the evidence is currently incomplete, and we found no evidence for beneficial effects. Current World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend reducing the amount of sedentary time in people with disabilities, in general. The evidence is currently not strong enough to guide practice on how best to reduce sedentariness specifically in people with stroke. More high‐quality randomised trials are needed, particularly involving participants with mobility limitations. Trials should include longer‐term interventions specifically targeted at reducing time spent sedentary, risk factor outcomes, objective measures of sedentary behaviour (and physical activity), and long‐term follow‐up

Derivation and validation of a modified short form of the stroke impact scale

Background: The Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) is a stroke-specific, quality of life measure recommended for research and clinical practice. Completion rates are suboptimal and could relate to test burden. We derived and validated a short form-SIS. Methods and Results: We examined data from the Virtual International Stroke Trial Archive, generating derivation and validation populations. We derived a short form (SF-SIS) by selecting one item per domain of SIS, choosing items most highly correlated with total domain score. Our validation described agreement of SF-SIS with original SIS and the SIS-16, and correlation with Barthel Index, modified Rankin Scale, NIHSS, and EQ-5D visual analogue scales. We assessed discriminative validity, (associations between SF-SIS and factors known to influence outcome [age, physiological parameters and comorbidity]). We assessed face validity and acceptability by sharing the SF-SIS with a focus group of stroke survivors and multidisciplinary stroke healthcare staff. From 5549 acute study patients (mean age: 68.5 (SD:13) years; mean SIS :64 [SD:32]) and 332 rehabilitation patients (mean age 65.7 [SD:11]; mean SIS:61 [SD:11]), we derived an 8-item SF-SIS that demonstrated good agreement with original SIS and good correlation with our chosen functional and QOL measures (all rho>0.70; p<0.0001). Significant associations were seen with our chosen predictors of stroke outcome in the acute group (p<0.0001). The focus group agreed with the choice of items for SF-SIS across 7/8 domains. Conclusions: Using multiple, complementary methods we have derived a short form SIS and demonstrated content, convergent and discriminant validity. This shortened SIS should allow collection of robust quality of life data with less associated test burden

A qualitative study of sedentary behaviours in stroke survivors:non-participant observations and interviews with stroke service staff in stroke units and community services

Purpose 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusions 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 rehabilitation Stroke 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

A co-production approach guided by the behaviour change wheel to develop an intervention for reducing sedentary behaviour after stroke

Background 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. Methods 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. Findings 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. Conclusions 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