A mixed-methods feasibility study of a new digital health support package for people after stroke : The Recovery-focused Community support to Avoid readmissions and improve Participation after Stroke (ReCAPS) intervention

Background Evidence for digital health programmes to support people living with stroke is growing. We assessed the feasibility of a protocol and procedures for the Recovery-focused Community support to Avoid readmissions and improve Participation after Stroke (ReCAPS) trial. Methods We conducted a mixed-method feasibility study. Participants with acute stroke were recruited from three hospitals (Melbourne, Australia). Eligibility: Adults with stroke discharged from hospital to home within 10 days, modified Rankin Score 0–4 and prior use of Short Message System (SMS)/email. While in hospital, recruited participants contributed to structured person-centred goal setting and completed baseline surveys including self-management skills and health-related quality of life. Participants were randomised 7–14 days after discharge via REDCap® (1:1 allocation). Following randomisation, the intervention group received a 12-week programme of personalised electronic support messages (average 66 messages sent by SMS or email) aligned with their goals. The control group received six electronic administrative messages. Feasibility outcomes included the following: number of patients screened and recruited, study retainment, completion of outcome measures and acceptability of the ReCAPS intervention and trial procedures (e.g. participant satisfaction survey, clinician interviews). Protocol fidelity outcomes included number of goals developed (and quality), electronic messages delivered, stop messages received and engagement with messages. We undertook inductive thematic analysis of interview/open-text survey data and descriptive analysis of closed survey questions. Results Between November 2018 and October 2019, 312 patients were screened; 37/105 (35%) eligible patients provided consent (mean age 61 years; 32% female); 33 were randomised (17 to intervention). Overall, 29 (88%) participants completed the12-week outcome assessments with 12 (41%) completed assessments in the allocated timeframe and 16 also completing the satisfaction survey (intervention=10). Overall, trial participants felt that the study was worthwhile and most would recommend it to others. Six clinicians participated in one of three focus group interviews; while they reported that the trial and the process of goal setting were acceptable, they raised concerns regarding the additional time required to personalise goals. Conclusion The study protocol and procedures were feasible with acceptable retention of participants. Consent and goal personalisation procedures should be centralised for the phase III trial to reduce the burden on hospital clinicians. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618001468213 (date 31/08/2018); Universal Trial Number: U1111-1206-723

Safety and efficacy of fluoxetine on functional outcome after acute stroke (AFFINITY): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Background Trials of fluoxetine for recovery after stroke report conflicting results. The Assessment oF FluoxetINe In sTroke recoverY (AFFINITY) trial aimed to show if daily oral fluoxetine for 6 months after stroke improves functional outcome in an ethnically diverse population. Methods AFFINITY was a randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial done in 43 hospital stroke units in Australia (n=29), New Zealand (four), and Vietnam (ten). Eligible patients were adults (aged ≥18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of acute stroke in the previous 2–15 days, brain imaging consistent with ischaemic or haemorrhagic stroke, and a persisting neurological deficit that produced a modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score of 1 or more. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 via a web-based system using a minimisation algorithm to once daily, oral fluoxetine 20 mg capsules or matching placebo for 6 months. Patients, carers, investigators, and outcome assessors were masked to the treatment allocation. The primary outcome was functional status, measured by the mRS, at 6 months. The primary analysis was an ordinal logistic regression of the mRS at 6 months, adjusted for minimisation variables. Primary and safety analyses were done according to the patient's treatment allocation. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12611000774921. Findings Between Jan 11, 2013, and June 30, 2019, 1280 patients were recruited in Australia (n=532), New Zealand (n=42), and Vietnam (n=706), of whom 642 were randomly assigned to fluoxetine and 638 were randomly assigned to placebo. Mean duration of trial treatment was 167 days (SD 48·1). At 6 months, mRS data were available in 624 (97%) patients in the fluoxetine group and 632 (99%) in the placebo group. The distribution of mRS categories was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (adjusted common odds ratio 0·94, 95% CI 0·76–1·15; p=0·53). Compared with patients in the placebo group, patients in the fluoxetine group had more falls (20 [3%] vs seven [1%]; p=0·018), bone fractures (19 [3%] vs six [1%]; p=0·014), and epileptic seizures (ten [2%] vs two [<1%]; p=0·038) at 6 months. Interpretation Oral fluoxetine 20 mg daily for 6 months after acute stroke did not improve functional outcome and increased the risk of falls, bone fractures, and epileptic seizures. These results do not support the use of fluoxetine to improve functional outcome after stroke

COMPARING COMPENSATORY AND RESTORATIVE APPROACHES TO MEMORY REHABILITATION FOLLOWING STROKE

Memory impairment is commonly experienced following stroke yet remains a high unmet need within the community. Two approaches have been used to rehabilitate memory: group compensation and computerised restoration. Despite decades of research into each respective approach, there is no clear consensus on how to best rehabilitate memory. This thesis sought to address this gap by exploring and contrasting restorative and compensatory approaches to memory rehabilitation following stroke. Using a mixed methodology approach, this study provides preliminary evidence that group compensation may be more more effective and enjoyable than computerised restoration in remediating everyday memory failures

Comparing memory group training and computerized cognitive training for improving memory function following stroke: A phase II randomized controlled trial

Objectives: Memory deficits are common after stroke, yet remain a high unmet need within the community. The aim of this phase II randomized controlled trial was to determine whether group compensatory or computerized cognitive training approaches were effective in rehabilitating memory following stroke. Methods: A parallel, 3-group, single-blind, randomized controlled trial was used to compare the effectiveness of a compensatory memory skills group with restorative computerized training on functional goal attainment. Secondary outcomes explored change in neuropsychological measures of memory, subjective ratings of prospective and everyday memory failures and ratings of internal and external strategy use. Results: A total of 65 community dwelling survivors of stroke were randomized (24: memory group, 22: computerized cognitive training, and 19: wait-list control). Participants allocated to the memory group reported significantly greater attainment of memory goals and internal strategy use at 6-week follow-up relative to participants in computerized training and wait-list control conditions. However, groups did not differ significantly on any subjective or objective secondary outcomes. Conclusion: Preliminary evidence shows that memory skills groups, but not computerized training, may facilitate achievement of functional memory goals for community dwelling survivors of stroke. These findings require further replication, given the modest sample size, subjective nature of the outcomes and the absence of objective eligibility for inclusion

The Psychological Experience of Frontline Perioperative Health Care Staff in Responding to COVID-19: Qualitative Study

BackgroundThe rapid spread of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has presented immeasurable challenges to health care workers who remain at the frontline of the pandemic. A rapidly evolving body of literature has quantitatively demonstrated significant psychological impacts of the pandemic on health care workers. However, little is known about the lived experience of the pandemic for frontline medical staff. ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore the qualitative experience of perioperative staff from a large trauma hospital in Melbourne, Australia. MethodsInductive thematic analysis using a critical realist approach was used to analyze data from 9 semistructured interviews. ResultsFour key themes were identified. Hospital preparedness related to the perceived readiness of the hospital to respond to the pandemic and encompassed key subthemes around communication of policy changes, team leadership, and resource availability. Perceptions of readiness contributed to the perceived psychological impacts of the pandemic, which were highly varied and ranged from anger to anxiety. A number of coping strategies were identified in response to psychological impacts which incorporated both internal and external coping mechanisms. Finally, adaptation with time reflected change and growth over time, and encompassed all other themes. ConclusionsWhile frontline staff and hospitals have rapidly marshalled a response to managing the virus, relatively less consideration was seen regarding staff mental health in our study. Findings highlight the vulnerability of health care workers in response to the pandemic and reinforce the need for a coordinated approach to managing mental health

Twelve-Month Outcomes of the AFFINITY Trial of Fluoxetine for Functional Recovery After Acute Stroke: AFFINITY Trial Steering Committee on Behalf of the AFFINITY Trial Collaboration

Background and Purpose: The AFFINITY trial (Assessment of Fluoxetine in Stroke Recovery) reported that oral fluoxetine 20 mg daily for 6 months after acute stroke did not improve functional outcome and increased the risk of falls, bone fractures, and seizures. After trial medication was ceased at 6 months, survivors were followed to 12 months post-randomization. This preplanned secondary analysis aimed to determine any sustained or delayed effects of fluoxetine at 12 months post-randomization. Methods: AFFINITY was a randomized, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adults (n=1280) with a clinical diagnosis of stroke in the previous 2 to 15 days and persisting neurological deficit who were recruited at 43 hospital stroke units in Australia (n=29), New Zealand (4), and Vietnam (10) between 2013 and 2019. Participants were randomized to oral fluoxetine 20 mg once daily (n=642) or matching placebo (n=638) for 6 months and followed until 12 months after randomization. The primary outcome was function, measured by the modified Rankin Scale, at 6 months. Secondary outcomes for these analyses included measures of the modified Rankin Scale, mood, cognition, overall health status, fatigue, health-related quality of life, and safety at 12 months. Results: Adherence to trial medication was for a mean 167 (SD 48) days and similar between randomized groups. At 12 months, the distribution of modified Rankin Scale categories was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (adjusted common odds ratio, 0.93 [95% CI, 0.76–1.14]; P =0.46). Compared with placebo, patients allocated fluoxetine had fewer recurrent ischemic strokes (14 [2.18%] versus 29 [4.55%]; P =0.02), and no longer had significantly more falls (27 [4.21%] versus 15 [2.35%]; P =0.08), bone fractures (23 [3.58%] versus 11 [1.72%]; P =0.05), or seizures (11 [1.71%] versus 8 [1.25%]; P =0.64) at 12 months. Conclusions: Fluoxetine 20 mg daily for 6 months after acute stroke had no delayed or sustained effect on functional outcome, falls, bone fractures, or seizures at 12 months poststroke. The lower rate of recurrent ischemic stroke in the fluoxetine group is most likely a chance finding. REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.anzctr.org.au/ ; Unique identifier: ACTRN12611000774921