Ordinal meta-analysis, based on WMW GenOR, of 5 simulated studies using mock EDSS data.

<p>Ordinal meta-analysis, based on WMW GenOR, of 5 simulated studies using mock EDSS data.</p

Reporting of central tendency for the 6 clinical rating scales.

<p>Reporting of central tendency for the 6 clinical rating scales.</p

Approach to pooling data from the 6 clinical rating scales in systematic reviews.

<p>Approach to pooling data from the 6 clinical rating scales in systematic reviews.</p

Ordinal meta-analysis, based on WMW GenOR calculated from summary statistics, of 5 simulated studies using mock EDSS data.

<p>Ordinal meta-analysis, based on WMW GenOR calculated from summary statistics, of 5 simulated studies using mock EDSS data.</p

Approach to statistical analysis for the 6 clinical rating scales.

<p>Approach to statistical analysis for the 6 clinical rating scales.</p

Histograms of mock EDSS data in a control group (sample 0) and 5 treatment groups (samples 1–5).

<p>Histograms of mock EDSS data in a control group (sample 0) and 5 treatment groups (samples 1–5).</p

Can the physical environment itself influence neurological patient activity?

<p><b>Purpose:</b> To evaluate if a changed physical environment following redesign of a hospital ward influenced neurological patient physical and social activity.</p> <p><b>Methods:</b> A “before and after” observational design was used that included 17 acute neurological patients pre-move (median age 77 (IQR 69–85) years Ward A and 20 post-move (median age 70 (IQR 57–81) years Ward B. Observations occurred for 1 day from 08.00–17.00 using Behavioral Mapping of patient physical and social activity, and location of that activity. Staff and ward policies remained unchanged throughout. An Environmental Description Checklist of each ward was also completed.</p> <p><b>Results:</b> Behavioral Mapping was conducted pre-/post-move with a total of 801 Ward A and 918 Ward B observations. Environmental Description Checklists showed similarities in design features in both neurological wards with similar numbers of de-centralized nursing stations, however there were more single rooms and varied locations to congregate in Ward B (30% more single-patient rooms and separate allied health therapy room). Patients were alone >60% of time in both wards, although there was more in bed social activity in Ward A and more out of bed social activity in Ward B. There were low amounts of physical activity outside of patient rooms in both wards. Significantly more physical activity occurred in Ward B patient rooms (median = 47%, IQR 14–74%) compared to Ward A (median = 2% IQR 0–14%), Wilcoxon Rank Sum test z = −3.28, <i>p</i> = 0.001.</p> <p><b>Conclusions:</b> Overall, patient social and physical activity was low, with little to no use of communal spaces. However we found more physical activity in patient rooms in the Ward B environment. Given the potential for patient activity to drive brain reorganization and repair, the physical environment should be considered an active factor in neurological rehabilitation and recovery.Implications for Rehabilitation</p><p>Clinicians should include consideration of the impact of physical environment on physical and social activity of neurological patients when designing therapeutic rehabilitation environments.</p><p>Despite architectural design intentions patient and social activity opportunities can be limited.</p><p>Optimal neurological patient neuroplasticity and recovery requires sufficient environmental challenge, however current hospital environments for rehabilitation do not provide this.</p><p></p> <p>Clinicians should include consideration of the impact of physical environment on physical and social activity of neurological patients when designing therapeutic rehabilitation environments.</p> <p>Despite architectural design intentions patient and social activity opportunities can be limited.</p> <p>Optimal neurological patient neuroplasticity and recovery requires sufficient environmental challenge, however current hospital environments for rehabilitation do not provide this.</p

sj-docx-1-wso-10.1177_17474930221135730 – Supplemental material for Enhancing generalizability of stroke clinical trial results: Illustrations from upper-limb motor recovery trials

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-wso-10.1177_17474930221135730 for Enhancing generalizability of stroke clinical trial results: Illustrations from upper-limb motor recovery trials by Emily J Dalton, Natasha A Lannin, Bruce CV Campbell, Leonid Churilov and Kathryn S Hayward in International Journal of Stroke</p

sj-docx-1-nnr-10.1177_15459683221129273 – Supplemental material for Upper-Limb Motor Intervention Elements That Drive Improvement in Biomarkers and Clinical Measures Post-Stroke: A Systematic Review in a Systems Paradigm

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-nnr-10.1177_15459683221129273 for Upper-Limb Motor Intervention Elements That Drive Improvement in Biomarkers and Clinical Measures Post-Stroke: A Systematic Review in a Systems Paradigm by Matthew Wingfield, Natalie A. Fini, Amy Brodtmann, Gavin Williams, Leonid Churilov and Kathryn S. Hayward in Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair</p

sj-docx-1-wso-10.1177_17474930231199336 – Supplemental material for Control intervention design for preclinical and clinical trials: Consensus-based core recommendations from the third Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-wso-10.1177_17474930231199336 for Control intervention design for preclinical and clinical trials: Consensus-based core recommendations from the third Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable by Kathryn S Hayward, Emily J Dalton, Jessica Barth, Marian Brady, Leora R Cherney, Leonid Churilov, Andrew N Clarkson, Jesse Dawson, Sean P Dukelow, Peter Feys, Maree Hackett, Steve R Zeiler and Catherine E Lang in International Journal of Stroke</p