From rehabilitation to recovery: protocol for a randomised controlled trial evaluating a goal-based intervention to reduce depression and facilitate participation post-stroke

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is much discourse in healthcare about the importance of client-centred rehabilitation, however in the realm of community-based therapy post-stroke there has been little investigation into the efficacy of goal-directed practice that reflects patients' valued activities. In addition, the effect of active involvement of carers in such a rehabilitation process and their subsequent contribution to functional and emotional recovery post-stroke is unclear. In community based rehabilitation, interventions based on patients' perceived needs may be more likely to alter such outcomes. In this paper, we describe the methodology of a randomised controlled trial of an integrated approach to facilitating patient goal achievement in the first year post-stroke. The effectiveness of this intervention in reducing the severity of post-stroke depression, improving participation status and health-related quality of life is examined. The impact on carers is also examined.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Patients (and their primary carers, if available) are randomly allocated to an intervention or control arm of the study. The intervention is multimodal and aims to screen for adverse stroke sequelae and address ways to enhance participation in patient-valued activities. Intervention methods include: telephone contacts, written information provision, home visitation, and contact with treating health professionals, with further relevant health service referrals as required. The control involves treatment as usual, as determined by inpatient and community rehabilitation treating teams. Formal blinded assessments are conducted at discharge from inpatient rehabilitation, and at six and twelve months post-stroke. The primary outcome is depression. Secondary outcome measures include participation and activity status, health-related quality of life, and self-efficacy.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The results of this trial will assist with the development of a model for community-based rehabilitation management for stroke patients and their carers, with emphasis on goal-directed practice to enhance home and community participation status. Facilitation of participation in valued activities may be effective in reducing the incidence or severity of post-stroke depression, as well as enhancing the individual's perception of their health-related quality of life. The engagement of carers in the rehabilitation process will enable review of the influence of the broader social context on recovery.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): <a href="http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12608000042347.aspx">ACTRN12608000042347</a></p

Memory rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis

Background: This is an update of the Cochrane review ‘Memory rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis’ (first published in the Cochrane Library 14 March 2012, Issue 3). Impairments in cognitive function, particularly memory, are common in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and can potentially affect their ability to complete functional activities. There is evidence from single-case or small group studies that memory rehabilitation can be beneficial for people with MS, but findings from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews have been inconclusive. Objectives: To determine whether people with MS who received memory rehabilitation showed: 1. better outcomes in their memory functions compared to those given no treatment or receiving a placebo control; and 2. better functional abilities, in terms of activities of daily living, mood, and quality of life, than those who received no treatment or a placebo. Search methods: We searched the Trials Specialised Register of the Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Diseases of the CNS Group (2 June 2015) and the following electronic databases: The NIHR Clinical Research Network Portfolio database (NIHR CRN) (from 2010 to June 2015), The Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) (2010 to June 2015), British Nursing Index (BNI) (2010 to June 2015), PsycINFO (2011 to June 2015), and CAB Abstracts (2010 to June 2015). Start dates for the electronic databases coincided with the last search for the previous review. We handsearched relevant journals and reference lists. Selection criteria: We selected RCTs or quasi-randomised trials ofmemory rehabilitation or cognitive rehabilitation for people with MS in which a memory rehabilitation treatment group was compared to a control group. Selection was conducted independently first and then confirmed through group discussion. We excluded studies that included participants whose memory deficits were the result of conditions other than MS unless we could identify a subgroup of participants with MS with separate results. Data collection and analysis: Three review authors were involved in this update in terms of study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction. We contacted investigators of primary studies for further information where required. We conducted data analysis and synthesis in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews ofInterventions (Higgins 2011). We performed a ’best evidence’ synthesis based on the methodological quality of the primary studies included. Main results: We added seven studies during this update, bringing the total to 15 studies, involving 989 participants. The interventions involved various memory retraining techniques, such as computerised programmes and training on internal and external memory aids. Control groups varied in format from assessment-only groups, discussion and games, non-specific cognitive retraining, and attention or visuospatial training. The risk of bias of the included studies was generally low, but we found eight studies to have high risk of bias related to certain aspects of their methodology. We found significant effect of intervention on objective assessments of memory in both the immediate and long-term follow-ups: standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.23 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.41) and SMD 0.26 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.49), respectively. We also found significant effect of intervention for quality of life in the immediate follow-up (SMD 0.23 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.41)). These findings showed that the intervention group performed significantly better than the control group. We also found a significant difference for activities of daily living (ADL) in the long-term follow-up (SMD -0.33 (95% CI -0.63 to -0.03)), showing that the control groups had significantly less difficulty completing ADLs than the intervention groups. We found no significant effects, either immediate or long-term, on subjective reports of memory problems (SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.27) and SMD 0.04 (95% CI -0.19 to 0.27)); on mood (SMD 0.02 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.20) and SMD -0.01 (95% CI -0.21 to 0.20)); and on immediate follow-up for ADL (SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.60 to 0.33)) and in the long term for quality of life (SMD 0.16 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.36)). We could not complete a sensitivity analysis of intention-to-treat in comparison with per-protocol analysis, due to insufficient information from the included papers. However, a sensitivity analysis of high- versus low-risk studies suggested that while quality of the trials did not affect most outcomes, differences were seen in the objective memory outcomes (both at immediate and long term) and quality of life (immediate) outcome, with studies with higher risk of bias inflating the overall effect size estimates for these outcomes, and the test of overall effect changing from being statistically significant to not significant when studies at high risk of bias were excluded. This suggests that lower-quality studies may have positively influenced the outcomes. Authors’ conclusions: There is some evidence to support the effectiveness of memory rehabilitation on memory function, as well as on quality of life. However, the evidence is limited and does not extend to subjective reports of memory functioning or mood. Furthermore, the objective measures used are not ecologically valid measures, and thus potentially limit generalisability of these findings into daily life. Further robust RCTs of high methodological quality and better quality of reporting, using ecologically valid outcome assessments, are still needed