Rehabilitation needs for older adults with stroke living at home: perceptions of four populations

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many people who have suffered a stroke require rehabilitation to help them resume their previous activities and roles in their own environment, but only some of them receive inpatient or even outpatient rehabilitation services. Partial and unmet rehabilitation needs may ultimately lead to a loss of functional autonomy, which increases utilization of health services, number of hospitalizations and early institutionalization, leading to a significant psychological and financial burden on the patients, their families and the health care system. The aim of this study was to explore partially met and unmet rehabilitation needs of older adults who had suffered a stroke and who live in the community. The emphasis was put on needs that act as obstacles to social participation in terms of personal factors, environmental factors and life habits, from the point of view of four target populations.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using the focus group technique, we met four types of experts living in three geographic areas of the province of Québec (Canada): older people with stroke, caregivers, health professionals and health care managers, for a total of 12 groups and 72 participants. The audio recordings of the meetings were transcribed and NVivo software was used to manage the data. The process of reducing, categorizing and analyzing the data was conducted using themes from the Disability Creation Process model.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Rehabilitation needs persist for nine capabilities (e.g. related to behaviour or motor activities), nine factors related to the environment (e.g. type of teaching, adaptation and rehabilitation) and 11 life habits (e.g. nutrition, interpersonal relationships). The caregivers and health professionals identified more unmet needs and insisted on an individualized rehabilitation. Older people with stroke and the health care managers had a more global view of rehabilitation needs and emphasized the availability of resources.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Better knowledge of partially met or unmet rehabilitation needs expressed by the different types of people involved should lead to increased attention being paid to education for caregivers, orientation of caregivers towards resources in the community, and follow-up of patients' needs in terms of adjustment and rehabilitation, whether for improving their skills or for carrying out their activities of daily living.</p

Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>By September 2009, 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy: 13 musculoskeletal conditions, four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions. We identified 49 recent relevant systematic reviews and 16 evidence-based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic reviews and guidelines.</p> <p>Additionally, brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological, non-invasive physical treatments.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for: acute, subacute, and chronic low back pain; migraine and cervicogenic headache; cervicogenic dizziness; manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration, and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain, sciatica, tension-type headache, coccydynia, temporomandibular joint disorders, fibromyalgia, premenstrual syndrome, and pneumonia in older adults. Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation, or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet. In children, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis, and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation.</p> <p>Massage is effective in adults for chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain. The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis, fibromyalgia, myofascial pain syndrome, migraine headache, and premenstrual syndrome. In children, the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic.</p