Speech and language therapy versus placebo or no intervention for speech problems in Parkinson's disease

Parkinson's disease patients commonly suffer from speech and vocal problems including dysarthric speech, reduced loudness and loss of articulation. These symptoms increase in frequency and intensity with progression of the disease). Speech and language therapy (SLT) aims to improve the intelligibility of speech with behavioural treatment techniques or instrumental aids

Effects of a physiotherapy and occupational therapy intervention on mobility and activity in care home residents: a cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness of a programme of physiotherapy and occupational therapy with standard care in care home residents who have mobility limitations and are dependent in performing activities of daily living

Lee Silverman voice treatment versus standard NHS speech and language therapy versus control in Parkinson's disease (PD COMM pilot):study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Parkinson’s disease is a common movement disorder affecting approximately 127,000 people in the UK, with an estimated two thirds having speech-related problems. Currently there is no preferred approach to speech and language therapy within the NHS and there is little evidence for the effectiveness of standard NHS therapy or Lee Silverman voice treatment. This trial aims to investigate the feasibility and acceptability of randomizing people with Parkinson’s disease-related speech or voice problems to Lee Silverman voice treatment or standard speech and language therapy compared to a no-intervention control. Methods/Design: The PD COMM pilot is a three arm, assessor-blinded, randomized controlled trial. Randomization will be computer-generated with participants randomized at a ratio of 1:1:1. Participants randomized to intervention arms will be immediately referred to the appropriate speech and language therapist. The target population are patients with a confirmed diagnosis of idiopathic Parkinson’s disease who have problems with their speech or voice. The Lee Silverman voice treatment intervention group will receive the standard regime of 16 sessions between 50 and 60 minutes in length over four weeks, with extra home practice. The standard speech and language therapy intervention group will receive a dose determined by patients’ individual needs, but not exceeding eight weeks of treatment. The control group will receive standard care with no speech and language therapy input for at least six months post-randomization. Outcomes will be assessed at baseline (pre-randomization) and post- randomization at three, six, and 12 months. The outcome measures include patient-reported voice measures, quality of life, resource use, and assessor-rated speech recordings. The recruitment aim is at least 60 participants over 21 months from 11 sites, equating to at least 20 participants in each arm of the trial. This trial is ongoing and recruitment commenced in May 2012. Discussion: This study will provide information on the feasibility and acceptability of randomizing participants to different speech and language therapies or control/deferred treatment. The findings relating to recruitment, treatment compliance, outcome measures, and effect size will inform a future phase III randomized controlled trial

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

An occupational therapy intervention for residents with stroke related disabilities in UK care homes (OTCH): cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective To evaluate the clinical efficacy of an established programme of occupational therapy in maintaining functional activity and reducing further health risks from inactivity in care home residents living with stroke sequelae. Design Pragmatic, parallel group, cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting 228 care homes (>10 beds each), both with and without the provision of nursing care, local to 11 trial administrative centres across the United Kingdom. Participants 1042 care home residents with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack, including those with language and cognitive impairments, not receiving end of life care. 114 homes (n=568 residents, 64% from homes providing nursing care) were allocated to the intervention arm and 114 homes (n=474 residents, 65% from homes providing nursing care) to standard care (control arm). Participating care homes were randomised between May 2010 and March 2012. Intervention Targeted three month programme of occupational therapy, delivered by qualified occupational therapists and assistants, involving patient centred goal setting, education of care home staff, and adaptations to the environment. Main outcome measures Primary outcome at the participant level: scores on the Barthel index of activities of daily living at three months post-randomisation. Secondary outcome measures at the participant level: Barthel index scores at six and 12 months post-randomisation, and scores on the Rivermead mobility index, geriatric depression scale-15, and EuroQol EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, at all time points. Results 64% of the participants were women and 93% were white, with a mean age of 82.9 years. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups for all measures, personal characteristics, and diagnostic tests. Overall, 2538 occupational therapy visits were made to 498 participants in the intervention arm (mean 5.1 visits per participant). No adverse events attributable to the intervention were recorded. 162 (11%) died before the primary outcome time point, and 313 (30%) died over the 12 months of the trial. The primary outcome measure did not differ significantly between the treatment arms. The adjusted mean difference in Barthel index score at three months was 0.19 points higher in the intervention arm (95% confidence interval −0.33 to 0.70, P=0.48). Secondary outcome measures also showed no significant differences at all time points. Conclusions This large phase III study provided no evidence of benefit for the provision of a routine occupational therapy service, including staff training, for care home residents living with stroke related disabilities. The established three month individualised course of occupational therapy targeting stroke related disabilities did not have an impact on measures of functional activity, mobility, mood, or health related quality of life, at all observational time points. Providing and targeting ameliorative care in this clinically complex population requires alternative strategies

UK survey of occupational therapist’s and physiotherapist’s experiences and attitudes towards hip replacement precautions and equipment

Background: Total hip replacement (THR) is one of the most common orthopaedic procedures in the United Kingdom (UK). Historically, people following THR have been provided with hip precautions and equipment such as: raised toilet seats and furniture rises, in order to reduce the risks of dislocation post-operation. The purpose of this study was to determine current practices in the provision of these interventions in the UK for people following primary THR. Methods: A 27-question, self-administered online survey was developed and distributed to UK physiotherapists and occupational therapists involved in the management of people following primary THR (target respondents). The survey included questions regarding the current practices in the provision of equipment and hip precautions for THR patients, and physiotherapist's and occupational therapist's attitudes towards these practices. The survey was disseminated through print and web-based/social media channels. Results: 170 health professionals (87 physiotherapists and 83 occupational therapists), responded to the survey. Commonly prescribed equipment in respondent's health trusts were raised toilet seats (95 %), toilet frames and rails (88 %), furniture raises (79 %), helping hands/grabbers (77 %), perching stools (75 %) and long-handled shoe horns (75 %). Hip precautions were routinely prescribed by 97 % of respondents. Hip precautions were most frequently taught in a pre-operative group (52 % of respondents). Similarly equipment was most frequently provided pre-operatively (61 % respondents), and most commonly by occupational therapists (74 % respondents). There was variability in the advice provided on the duration of hip precautions and equipment from up to 6 weeks post-operatively to life-time usage. Conclusions: Current practice on hip precautions and provision of equipment is not full representative of clinician's perceptions of best care after THR. Future research is warranted to determine whether and to whom hip precautions and equipment should be prescribed post-THR as opposed to the current 'blanket' provision of equipment and movement restriction provided in UK practice.</p

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)

Effectiveness of community-based rehabilitation interventions incorporating outdoor mobility on ambulatory ability and falls-related self-efficacy after hip fracture: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

UNLABELLED: There is limited evidence from 11 randomised controlled trials on the effect of rehabilitation interventions which incorporate outdoor mobility on ambulatory ability and/or self-efficacy after hip fracture. Outdoor mobility should be central (not peripheral) to future intervention studies targeting improvements in ambulatory ability. PURPOSE: Determine the extent to which outdoor mobility is incorporated into rehabilitation interventions after hip fracture. Synthesise the evidence for the effectiveness of these interventions on ambulatory ability and falls-related self-efficacy. METHODS: Systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo, CINAHL, PEDro and OpenGrey for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of community-based rehabilitation interventions incorporating outdoor mobility after hip fracture from database inception to January 2021. Exclusion of protocols, pilot/feasibility studies, secondary analyses of RCTs, nonrandomised and non-English language studies. Duplicate screening for eligibility, risk of bias, and data extraction sample. Random effects meta-analysis. Statistical heterogeneity with inconsistency-value (I2). RESULTS: RCTs (n = 11) provided limited detail on target or achieved outdoor mobility intervention components. There was conflicting evidence from 2 RCTs for the effect on outdoor walking ability at 1-3 months (risk difference 0.19; 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.21, 0.58; I2 = 92%), no effect on walking endurance at intervention end (standardised mean difference 0.05; 95% CI: - 0.26, 0.35; I2 = 36%); and suggestive (CI crosses null) of a small effect on self-efficacy at 1-3 months (standardised mean difference 0.25; 95% CI: - 0.29, 0.78; I2 = 87%) compared with routine care/sham intervention. CONCLUSION: It was not possible to attribute any benefit observed to an outdoor mobility intervention component due to poor reporting of target or achieved outdoor mobility and/or quality of the underlying evidence. Given the low proportion of patients recovering outdoor mobility after hip fracture, future research on interventions with outdoor mobility as a central component is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration: CRD42021236541

Recruitment challenges in stroke rehabilitation randomized controlled trials : a qualitative exploration of trialists’ perspectives using Framework analysis

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This research was part of a Glasgow Caledonian University funded studentship PhD based at, the Nursing Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit. The NMAHP RU and MCB are funded by the Chief Science Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate. The views expressed here are that of the authors and not necessarily the funders.Peer reviewe