Faye Wray1, David Clarke1, Anne Forster1. 1. a Academic Unit of Elderly Care and Rehabilitation , Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds , Bradford , UK.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To systematically review self-management interventions to determine their efficacy for people with stroke in relation to any health outcome and to establish whether stroke survivors with aphasia were included. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, and IBSS and undertook gray literature searches. Randomized controlled trials were eligible if they included stroke survivors aged 18 + in a "self-management" intervention. Data were extracted by two independent researchers and included an assessment of methodological quality. RESULTS: 24 studies were identified. 11 out of 24 reported statistically significant benefits in favor of self-management. However, there were significant limitations in terms of methodological quality, and meta-analyses (n= 8 studies) showed no statistically significant benefit of self-management upon global disability and stroke-specific quality of life at 3 months or ADL at 3 or 6 months follow-up. A review of inclusion and exclusion criteria showed 11 out of 24 (46%) studies reported total or partial exclusion of stroke survivors with aphasia. Four out of 24 (17%) reported the number of stroke survivors with aphasia included. In nine studies (38%) it was unclear whether stroke survivors with aphasia were included or excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Robust conclusions regarding the effectiveness of poststroke self-management approaches could not be drawn. Further trials are needed, these should clearly report the population included. Implications for rehabilitation There is a lack of evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of self-management approaches for stroke survivors. It is unclear whether self-management approaches are suitable for stroke survivors with aphasia, particularly those with moderate or severe aphasia. Further research is needed to understand the optimal timing for self-management in the stroke pathway and the format in which self-management support should be offered.
PURPOSE: To systematically review self-management interventions to determine their efficacy for people with stroke in relation to any health outcome and to establish whether stroke survivors with aphasia were included. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, and IBSS and undertook gray literature searches. Randomized controlled trials were eligible if they included stroke survivors aged 18 + in a "self-management" intervention. Data were extracted by two independent researchers and included an assessment of methodological quality. RESULTS: 24 studies were identified. 11 out of 24 reported statistically significant benefits in favor of self-management. However, there were significant limitations in terms of methodological quality, and meta-analyses (n= 8 studies) showed no statistically significant benefit of self-management upon global disability and stroke-specific quality of life at 3 months or ADL at 3 or 6 months follow-up. A review of inclusion and exclusion criteria showed 11 out of 24 (46%) studies reported total or partial exclusion of stroke survivors with aphasia. Four out of 24 (17%) reported the number of stroke survivors with aphasia included. In nine studies (38%) it was unclear whether stroke survivors with aphasia were included or excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Robust conclusions regarding the effectiveness of poststroke self-management approaches could not be drawn. Further trials are needed, these should clearly report the population included. Implications for rehabilitation There is a lack of evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of self-management approaches for stroke survivors. It is unclear whether self-management approaches are suitable for stroke survivors with aphasia, particularly those with moderate or severe aphasia. Further research is needed to understand the optimal timing for self-management in the stroke pathway and the format in which self-management support should be offered.
Authors: Stephen C L Lau; Stephanie Judycki; Mikayla Mix; Olivia DePaul; Rachel Tomazin; Angela Hardi; Alex W K Wong; Carolyn Baum Journal: Am J Occup Ther Date: 2022-07-01
Authors: Anna Palumbo; Viswanath Aluru; Jessica Battaglia; Daniel Geller; Alan Turry; Marc Ross; Adrian Cristian; Caitlin Balagula; Gbenga Ogedegbe; Latika Khatri; Moses V Chao; Robert C Froemke; Jacek K Urbanek; Preeti Raghavan Journal: Am J Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2021-12-06 Impact factor: 3.412
Authors: Lisa Kidd; Julie Duncan Millar; Helen Mason; Terry Quinn; Katie I Gallacher; Fiona Jones; Rebecca J Fisher; Therese Lebedis; Mark Barber; Katrina Brennan; Mark Smith Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-01-20 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jessica Kersey; William S Evans; Katie Mullen; Annette Askren; Robert Cavanaugh; Sarah E Wallace; William D Hula; Michael Walsh Dickey; Lauren Terhorst; Elizabeth Skidmore Journal: OTJR (Thorofare N J) Date: 2021-06-26
Authors: Sophie Lehnerer; Benjamin Hotter; Inken Padberg; Petra Knispel; Dike Remstedt; Andrea Liebenau; Ulrike Grittner; Ian Wellwood; Andreas Meisel Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2019-09-06 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Maria Flink; Sebastian Lindblom; Malin Tistad; Ann Charlotte Laska; Bo Christer Bertilsson; Carmen Wärlinge; Jan Hasselström; Marie Elf; Lena von Koch; Charlotte Ytterberg Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-12-23 Impact factor: 2.692