Implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices in stroke rehabilitation (Review)

Background Rehabilitation based upon research evidence gives stroke survivors the best chance of recovery. There is substantial research to guide practice in stroke rehabilitation, yet uptake of evidence by healthcare professionals is typically slow and patients often do not receive evidence‐based care. Implementation interventions are an important means to translate knowledge from research to practice and thus optimise the care and outcomes for stroke survivors. A synthesis of research evidence is required to guide the selection and use of implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation. Objectives To assess the effects of implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence‐based practices (including clinical assessments and treatments recommended in evidence‐based guidelines) in stroke rehabilitation and to assess the effects of implementation interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change compared to non‐tailored interventions in stroke rehabilitation. Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other databases to 17 October 2019. We searched OpenGrey, performed citation tracking and reference checking for included studies and contacted authors of included studies to obtain further information and identify potentially relevant studies. Selection criteria We included individual and cluster randomised trials, non‐randomised trials, interrupted time series studies and controlled before‐after studies comparing an implementation intervention to no intervention or to another implementation approach in stroke rehabilitation. Participants were qualified healthcare professionals working in stroke rehabilitation and the patients they cared for. Studies were considered for inclusion regardless of date, language or publication status. Main outcomes were healthcare professional adherence to recommended treatment, patient adherence to recommended treatment, patient health status and well‐being, healthcare professional intention and satisfaction, resource use outcomes and adverse effects. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was any implementation intervention compared to no intervention. Main results Nine cluster randomised trials (12,428 patient participants) and three ongoing trials met our selection criteria. Five trials (8865 participants) compared an implementation intervention to no intervention, three trials (3150 participants) compared one implementation intervention to another implementation intervention, and one three‐arm trial (413 participants) compared two different implementation interventions to no intervention. Eight trials investigated multifaceted interventions; educational meetings and educational materials were the most common components. Six trials described tailoring the intervention content to identified barriers to change. Two trials focused on evidence‐based stroke rehabilitation in the acute setting, four focused on the subacute inpatient setting and three trials focused on stroke rehabilitation in the community setting. We are uncertain if implementation interventions improve healthcare professional adherence to evidence‐based practice in stroke rehabilitation compared with no intervention as the certainty of the evidence was very low (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.64; 2 trials, 39 clusters, 1455 patient participants; I2 = 0%). Low‐certainty evidence indicates implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation may lead to little or no difference in patient adherence to recommended treatment (number of recommended performed outdoor journeys adjusted mean difference (MD) 0.5, 95% CI –1.8 to 2.8; 1 trial, 21 clusters, 100 participants) and patient psychological well‐being (standardised mean difference (SMD) –0.02, 95% CI –0.54 to 0.50; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1273 participants; I2 = 0%) compared with no intervention. Moderate‐certainty evidence indicates implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation probably lead to little or no difference in patient health‐related quality of life (MD 0.01, 95% CI –0.02 to 0.05; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1242 participants; I2 = 0%) and activities of daily living (MD 0.29, 95% CI –0.16 to 0.73; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1272 participants; I2 = 0%) compared with no intervention. No studies reported the effects of implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation on healthcare professional intention to change behaviour or satisfaction. Five studies reported economic outcomes, with one study reporting cost‐effectiveness of the implementation intervention. However, this was assessed at high risk of bias. The other four studies did not demonstrate the cost‐effectiveness of interventions. Tailoring interventions to identified barriers did not alter results. We are uncertain of the effect of one implementation intervention versus another given the limited very low‐certainty evidence. Authors' conclusions We are uncertain if implementation interventions improve healthcare professional adherence to evidence‐based practice in stroke rehabilitation compared with no intervention as the certainty of the evidence is very low

A Network of Sites and Upskilled Therapists to Deliver Best-Practice Stroke Rehabilitation of the Arm : Protocol for a Knowledge Translation Study

Implementation of evidence-informed rehabilitation of the upper limb is variable, and outcomes for stroke survivors are often suboptimal. We established a national partnership of clinicians, survivors of stroke, researchers, healthcare organizations, and policy makers to facilitate change. The objectives of this study are to increase access to best-evidence rehabilitation of the upper limb and improve outcomes for stroke survivors. This prospective pragmatic, knowledge translation study involves four new specialist therapy centers to deliver best-evidence upper-limb sensory rehabilitation (known as SENSe therapy) for survivors of stroke in the community. A knowledge-transfer intervention will be used to upskill therapists and guide implementation. Specialist centers will deliver SENSe therapy, an effective and recommended therapy, to stroke survivors in the community. Outcomes include number of successful deliveries of SENSe therapy by credentialled therapists; improved somatosensory function for stroke survivors; improved performance in self-selected activities, arm use, and quality of life; treatment fidelity and confidence to deliver therapy; and for future implementation, expert therapist effect and cost-effectiveness. In summary, we will determine the effect of a national partnership to increase access to evidence-based upper-limb sensory rehabilitation following stroke. If effective, this knowledge-transfer intervention could be used to optimize the delivery of other complex, evidence-based rehabilitation interventions

The effectiveness of somatosensory retraining for improving sensory function in the arm following stroke: a systematic review

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate if somatosensory retraining programmes assist people to improve somatosensory discrimination skills and arm functioning after stroke. Data sources: Nine databases were systematically searched: Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsychInfo, Embase, Amed, Web of Science, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, OT seeker, and Cochrane Library. Review methods: Studies were included for review if they involved (1) adult participants who had somatosensory impairment in the arm after stroke, (2) a programme targeted at retraining somatosensation, (3) a primary measure of somatosensory discrimination skills in the arm, and (4) an intervention study design (e.g. randomized or non-randomized control designs). Results: A total of 6779 articles were screened. Five group trials and five single case experimental designs were included (N = 199 stroke survivors). Six studies focused exclusively on retraining somatosensation and four studies focused on somatosensation and motor retraining. Standardized somatosensory measures were typically used for tactile, proprioception, and haptic object recognition modalities. Sensory intervention effect sizes ranged from 0.3 to 2.2, with an average effect size of 0.85 across somatosensory modalities. A majority of effect sizes for proprioception and tactile somatosensory domains were greater than 0.5, and all but one of the intervention effect sizes were larger than the control effect sizes, at least as point estimates. Six studies measured motor and/or functional arm outcomes (n = 89 participants), with narrative analysis suggesting a trend towards improvement in arm use after somatosensory retraining. Conclusion: Somatosensory retraining may assist people to regain somatosensory discrimination skills in the arm after stroke

Changing practice in the assessment and treatment of somatosensory loss in stroke survivors: Protocol for a knowledge translation study

Background The treatment of somatosensory loss in the upper limb after stroke has been historically overshadowed by therapy focused on motor recovery. A double-blind randomized controlled trial has demonstrated the effectiveness of SENSe (Study of the Effectiveness of Neurorehabilitation on Sensation) therapy to retrain somatosensory discrimination after stroke. Given the acknowledged prevalence of upper limb sensory loss after stroke and the evidence-practice gap that exists in this area, effort is required to translate the published research to clinical practice. The aim of this study is to determine whether evidence-based knowledge translation strategies change the practice of occupational therapists and physiotherapists in the assessment and treatment of sensory loss of the upper limb after stroke to improve patient outcomes. Method/design A pragmatic, before-after study design involving eight (n = 8) Australian health organizations, specifically sub-acute and community rehabilitation facilities. Stroke survivors (n = 144) and occupational therapists and physiotherapists (~10 per site, ~n = 80) will be involved in the study. Stroke survivors will be provided with SENSe therapy or usual care. Occupational therapists and physiotherapists will be provided with a multi-component approach to knowledge translation including i) tailoring of the implementation intervention to site-specific barriers and enablers, ii) interactive group training workshops, iii) establishing and fostering champion therapists and iv) provision of written educational materials and online resources. Outcome measures for occupational therapists and physiotherapists will be pre- and post-implementation questionnaires and audits of medical records. The primary outcome for stroke survivors will be change in upper limb somatosensory function, measured using a standardized composite measure. Discussion This study will provide evidence and a template for knowledge translation in clinical, organizational and policy contexts in stroke rehabilitation. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) retrospective registration ACTRN12615000933550

Experiences of upper limb somatosensory retraining in persons with stroke: an interpretative phenomenological analysis

Purpose: The aim of this study was to explore experiences of upper limb somatosensory discrimination retraining in persons with stroke.Methods: A qualitative methodology was used within the context of a randomized control trial of somatosensory retraining: the CoNNECT trial. Participants in the CoNNECT trial completed a treatment program, known as SENSe therapy, to retrain upper limb somatosensory discrimination and recognition skills, and use of these skills in personally valued activities. Eight participants were interviewed on their experience of this therapy. Data were analyzed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA).Results: Five themes represented participants’ experiences of upper limb somatosensory retraining after stroke: (1) loss of sensation and desire to reclaim normality; (2) harnessing positivity in the therapeutic relationship and specialized therapy; (3) facing cognitive and emotional challenges; (4) distinct awareness of gains and differences in bodily sensations; and (5) improved functioning: control and choice in daily performance. Persons with stroke experienced somatosensory retraining as a valuable treatment that provided them with sensory and functional gains.Conclusion: Upper limb somatosensory retraining is a treatment that persons with stroke perceived as challenging and rewarding. People who have experienced stroke believed that somatosensory retraining therapy assisted them to improve their sensation, functional arm use, as well as daily performance and participation in life

Implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices in stroke rehabilitation

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: The primary objective of this Cochrane Review is to assess the effects of implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence‐based practices (including clinical assessments and treatments recommended in evidence‐based guidelines) in stroke rehabilitation. A secondary objective is to assess the effects of implementation interventions that are tailored towards identified barriers to change compared to non‐tailored interventions in stroke rehabilitation

Additional file 1: of Changing practice in the assessment and treatment of somatosensory loss in stroke survivors: protocol for a knowledge translation study

SENSe therapy equipment. (PDF 247 kb

Implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices in stroke rehabilitation : Review

Background: Rehabilitation based upon research evidence gives stroke survivors the best chance of recovery. There is substantial research to guide practice in stroke rehabilitation, yet uptake of evidence by healthcare professionals is typically slow and patients often do not receive evidence‐based care. Implementation interventions are an important means to translate knowledge from research to practice and thus optimise the care and outcomes for stroke survivors. A synthesis of research evidence is required to guide the selection and use of implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation. Objectives: To assess the effects of implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence‐based practices (including clinical assessments and treatments recommended in evidence‐based guidelines) in stroke rehabilitation and to assess the effects of implementation interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change compared to non‐tailored interventions in stroke rehabilitation. Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other databases to 17 October 2019. We searched OpenGrey, performed citation tracking and reference checking for included studies and contacted authors of included studies to obtain further information and identify potentially relevant studies. Selection criteria: We included individual and cluster randomised trials, non‐randomised trials, interrupted time series studies and controlled before‐after studies comparing an implementation intervention to no intervention or to another implementation approach in stroke rehabilitation. Participants were qualified healthcare professionals working in stroke rehabilitation and the patients they cared for. Studies were considered for inclusion regardless of date, language or publication status. Main outcomes were healthcare professional adherence to recommended treatment, patient adherence to recommended treatment, patient health status and well‐being, healthcare professional intention and satisfaction, resource use outcomes and adverse effects. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was any implementation intervention compared to no intervention. Main results: Nine cluster randomised trials (12,428 patient participants) and three ongoing trials met our selection criteria. Five trials (8865 participants) compared an implementation intervention to no intervention, three trials (3150 participants) compared one implementation intervention to another implementation intervention, and one three‐arm trial (413 participants) compared two different implementation interventions to no intervention. Eight trials investigated multifaceted interventions; educational meetings and educational materials were the most common components. Six trials described tailoring the intervention content to identified barriers to change. Two trials focused on evidence‐based stroke rehabilitation in the acute setting, four focused on the subacute inpatient setting and three trials focused on stroke rehabilitation in the community setting. We are uncertain if implementation interventions improve healthcare professional adherence to evidence‐based practice in stroke rehabilitation compared with no intervention as the certainty of the evidence was very low (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.64; 2 trials, 39 clusters, 1455 patient participants; I2 = 0%). Low‐certainty evidence indicates implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation may lead to little or no difference in patient adherence to recommended treatment (number of recommended performed outdoor journeys adjusted mean difference (MD) 0.5, 95% CI –1.8 to 2.8; 1 trial, 21 clusters, 100 participants) and patient psychological well‐being (standardised mean difference (SMD) –0.02, 95% CI –0.54 to 0.50; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1273 participants; I2 = 0%) compared with no intervention. Moderate‐certainty evidence indicates implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation probably lead to little or no difference in patient health‐related quality of life (MD 0.01, 95% CI –0.02 to 0.05; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1242 participants; I2 = 0%) and activities of daily living (MD 0.29, 95% CI –0.16 to 0.73; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1272 participants; I2 = 0%) compared with no intervention. No studies reported the effects of implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation on healthcare professional intention to change behaviour or satisfaction. Five studies reported economic outcomes, with one study reporting cost‐effectiveness of the implementation intervention. However, this was assessed at high risk of bias. The other four studies did not demonstrate the cost‐effectiveness of interventions. Tailoring interventions to identified barriers did not alter results. We are uncertain of the effect of one implementation intervention versus another given the limited very low‐certainty evidence. Authors' conclusions: We are uncertain if implementation interventions improve healthcare professional adherence to evidence‐based practice in stroke rehabilitation compared with no intervention as the certainty of the evidence is very low

Discovery of Cyclic Peptide Ligands to the SARS-CoV_2 Spike Protein Using mRNA Display

The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by SARS-CoV-2, has led to substantial morbidity, mortality, and disruption globally. Cellular entry of SARS-CoV-2 is mediated by the viral spike protein, and affinity ligands to this surface protein have the potential for applications as antivirals and diagnostic reagents. Here, we describe the affinity selection of cyclic peptide ligands to the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein receptor binding domain (RBD) from three distinct libraries (in excess of a trillion molecules each) by mRNA display. We identified six high affinity molecules with dissociation constants (K D) in the nanomolar range (15-550 nM) to the RBD. The highest affinity ligand could be used as an affinity reagent to detect the spike protein in solution by ELISA, and the cocrystal structure of this molecule bound to the RBD demonstrated that it binds to a cryptic binding site, displacing a _-strand near the C-terminus. Our findings provide key mechanistic insight into the binding of peptide ligands to the SARS-CoV-2 spike RBD, and the ligands discovered in this work may find future use as reagents for diagnostic applications