Experiences of augmented arm rehabilitation including supported self-management after stroke: a qualitative investigation.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the experiences of stroke survivors and their carers of augmented arm rehabilitation including supported self-management in terms of its acceptability, appropriateness and relevance. DESIGN: A qualitative design, nested within a larger, multi-centre randomized controlled feasibility trial that compared augmented arm rehabilitation starting at three or nine weeks after stroke, with usual care. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants in both augmented arm rehabilitation groups. Normalization Process Theory was used to inform the topic guide and map the findings. Framework analysis was applied. SETTING: Interviews were conducted in stroke survivors' homes, at Glasgow Caledonian University and in hospital. PARTICIPANTS: 17 stroke survivors and five carers were interviewed after completion of augmented arm rehabilitation. INTERVENTION: Evidence-based augmented arm rehabilitation (27 additional hours over six weeks), including therapist-led sessions and supported self-management. RESULTS: Three main themes were identified: (1) acceptability of the intervention (2) supported self-management and (3) coping with the intervention. All stroke survivors coped well with the intensity of the augmented arm rehabilitation programme. The majority of stroke survivors engaged in supported self-management and implemented activities into their daily routine. However, the findings suggest that some stroke survivors (male >70 years) had difficulties with self-management, needing a higher level of support. CONCLUSION: Augmented arm rehabilitation commencing within nine weeks post stroke was reported to be well tolerated. The findings suggested that supported self-management seemed acceptable and appropriate to those who saw the relevance of the rehabilitation activities for their daily lives, and embedded them into their daily routines.

Interventions for improving oral health in people after stroke.

BACKGROUND: For people with physical, sensory and cognitive limitations due to stroke, the routine practice of oral health care (OHC) may become a challenge. Evidence-based supported oral care intervention is essential for this patient group. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of OHC interventions with usual care or other treatment options for ensuring oral health in people after a stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group and Cochrane Oral Health Group trials registers, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases in February 2019. We scanned reference lists from relevant papers and contacted authors and researchers in the field. We handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted other researchers. There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated one or more interventions designed to improve the cleanliness and health of the mouth, tongue and teeth in people with a stroke who received assisted OHC led by healthcare staff. We included trials with a mixed population provided we could extract the stroke-specific data. The primary outcomes were dental plaque or denture plaque. Secondary outcomes included presence of oral disease, presence of related infection and oral opportunistic pathogens related to OHC and pneumonia, stroke survivor and providers' knowledge and attitudes to OHC, and patient satisfaction and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened abstracts and full-text articles according to prespecified selection criteria, extracted data and assessed the methodological quality using the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. We sought clarification from investigators when required. Where suitable statistical data were available, we combined the selected outcome data in pooled meta-analyses. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen RCTs (22 randomised comparisons) involving 3631 participants with data for 1546 people with stroke met the selection criteria. OHC interventions compared with usual care Seven trials (2865 participants, with data for 903 participants with stroke, 1028 healthcare providers, 94 informal carers) investigated OHC interventions compared with usual care. Multi-component OHC interventions showed no evidence of a difference in the mean score (DMS) of dental plaque one month after the intervention was delivered (DMS -0.66, 95% CI -1.40 to 0.09; 2 trials, 83 participants; I2 = 83%; P = 0.08; very low-quality evidence). Stroke survivors had less plaque on their dentures when staff had access to the multi-component OHC intervention (DMS -1.31, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.66; 1 trial, 38 participants; P < 0.0001; low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in gingivitis (DMS -0.60, 95% CI -1.66 to 0.45; 2 trials, 83 participants; I2 = 93%; P = 0.26: very low-quality evidence) or denture-induced stomatitis (DMS -0.33, 95% CI -0.92 to 0.26; 1 trial, 38 participants; P = 0.69; low-quality evidence) among participants receiving the multi-component OHC protocol compared with usual care one month after the intervention. There was no difference in the incidence of pneumonia in participants receiving a multi-component OHC intervention (99 participants; 5 incidents of pneumonia) compared with those receiving usual care (105 participants; 1 incident of pneumonia) (OR 4.17, CI 95% 0.82 to 21.11; 1 trial, 204 participants; P = 0.08; low-quality evidence). OHC training for stroke survivors and healthcare providers significantly improved their OHC knowledge at one month after training (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.35; 3 trials, 728 participants; I2 = 94%; P = 0.03; very low-quality evidence). Pooled data one month after training also showed evidence of a difference between stroke survivor and providers' oral health attitudes (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54; 3 trials, 728 participants; I2 = 65%; P = 0.06; very low-quality evidence). OHC interventions compared with placebo Three trials (394 participants, with data for 271 participants with stroke) compared an OHC intervention with placebo. There were no data for primary outcomes. There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of pneumonia in participants receiving an OHC intervention compared with placebo (OR 0.39, CI 95% 0.14 to 1.09; 2 trials, 242 participants; I2 = 42%; P = 0.07; low-quality evidence). However, decontamination gel reduced the incidence of pneumonia among the intervention group compared with placebo gel group (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.84; 1 trial, 203 participants; P = 0.028). There was no difference in the incidence of pneumonia in participants treated with povidone-iodine compared with a placebo (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.51; 1 trial, 39 participants; P = 0.77). One OHC intervention compared with another OHC intervention Twelve trials (372 participants with stroke) compared one OHC intervention with another OHC intervention. There was no difference in dental plaque scores between those participants that received an enhanced multi-component OHC intervention compared with conventional OHC interventions at three months (MD -0.04, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.25; 1 trial, 61 participants; P = 0.78; low-quality evidence). There were no data for denture plaque. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-quality evidence suggesting that OHC interventions can improve the cleanliness of patient's dentures and stroke survivor and providers' knowledge and attitudes. There is limited low-quality evidence that selective decontamination gel may be more beneficial than placebo at reducing the incidence of pneumonia. Improvements in the cleanliness of a patient's own teeth was limited. We judged the quality of the evidence included within meta-analyses to be low or very low quality, and this limits our confidence in the results. We still lack high-quality evidence of the optimal approach to providing OHC to people after stroke.

A pragmatic, multi-centered, stepped wedge, cluster randomized controlled trial pilot of the clinical and cost effectiveness of a complex Stroke Oral healthCare intervention pLan Evaluation II (SOCLE II) compared with usual oral healthcare in stroke wards.

BACKGROUND: Patients with stroke-associated pneumonia experience poorer outcomes (increased hospital stays, costs, discharge dependency, and risk of death). High-quality, organized oral healthcare may reduce the incidence of stroke-associated pneumonia and improve oral health and quality of life. AIMS: We piloted a pragmatic, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized controlled trial of clinical and cost effectiveness of enhanced versus usual oral healthcare for people in stroke rehabilitation settings. METHODS: Scottish stroke rehabilitation wards were randomly allocated to stepped time-points for conversion from usual to enhanced oral healthcare. All admissions and nursing staff were eligible for inclusion. We piloted the viability of randomization, intervention, data collection, record linkage procedures, our sample size, screening, and recruitment estimates. The stepped-wedge trial design prevented full blinding of outcome assessors and staff. Predetermined criteria for progression included the validity of enhanced oral healthcare intervention (training, oral healthcare protocol, assessment, equipment), data collection, and stroke-associated pneumonia event rate and relationship between stroke-associated pneumonia and plaque. RESULTS: We screened 1548/2613 (59%) admissions to four wards, recruiting n = 325 patients and n = 112 nurses. We observed marked between-site diversity in admissions, recruitment populations, stroke-associated pneumonia events (0% to 21%), training, and resource use. No adverse events were reported. Oral healthcare documentation was poor. We found no evidence of a difference in stroke-associated pneumonia between enhanced versus usual oral healthcare (P = 0.62, odds ratio = 0.61, confidence interval: 0.08 to 4.42). CONCLUSIONS: Our stepped-wedge cluster randomized control trial accommodated between-site diversity. The stroke-associated pneumonia event rate did not meet our predetermined progression criteria. We did not meet our predefined progression criteria including the SAP event rate and consequently were unable to establish whether there is a relationship between SAP and plaque. A wide confidence interval did not exclude the possibility that enhanced oral healthcare may result in a benefit or detrimental effect. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01954212.