A study of prisms and therapy in attention loss after stroke (SPATIAL): A feasibility randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Investigate feasibility and acceptability of prism adaptation training for people with inattention (spatial neglect), early after stroke, during usual care. DESIGN: Phase II feasibility randomised controlled trial with 3:1 stratified allocation to standard occupational therapy with or without intervention, and nested process evaluation. SETTING: Ten hospital sites providing in-patient stroke services. PARTICIPANTS: Screened positive for inattention more than one-week post-stroke; informal carers. Occupational therapists participated in qualitative interviews. INTERVENTION: Adjunctive prism adaptation training at the start of standard occupational therapy sessions for three weeks. MAIN MEASURES: Feasibility measures included recruitment and retention rates, intervention fidelity and attrition. Outcomes collected at baseline, 3 weeks and 12 weeks tested measures including Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale. Acceptability was explored through qualitative interviews and structured questions. RESULTS: Eighty (31%) patients were eligible, 57 (71%) consented, 54 randomised (40:13, +1 exclusion) and 39 (74%) completed 12-week outcomes. Treatment fidelity was good: participants received median eight intervention sessions (IQR: 5, 12) lasting 4.7 min (IQR: 4.1, 5.0). All six serious adverse events were unrelated. There was no signal that patients allocated to intervention did better than controls. Twenty five of 35 recruited carers provided outcomes with excellent data completeness. Therapists, patients and carers found prism adaptation training acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible and acceptable to conduct a high-quality definitive trial of prism adaptation training within occupational therapy early after stroke in usual care setting, but difficult to justify given no sign of benefit over standard occupational therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: https://www.isrctn.com/ Ref ISRCTN88395268.

Non-pharmacological interventions for spatial neglect or inattention following stroke and other non-progressive brain injury.

BACKGROUND: People with spatial neglect after stroke or other brain injury have difficulty attending to one side of space. Various rehabilitation interventions have been used, but evidence of their benefit is unclear. OBJECTIVES: The main objective was to determine the effects of non-pharmacological interventions for people with spatial neglect after stroke and other adult-acquired non-progressive brain injury. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched October 2020), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; last searched October 2020), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2020), Embase (1980 to October 2020), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1983 to October 2020), and PsycINFO (1974 to October 2020). We also searched ongoing trials registers and screened reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of any non-pharmacological intervention specifically aimed at spatial neglect. We excluded studies of general rehabilitation and studies with mixed participant groups, unless separate neglect data were available. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Review authors categorised the interventions into eight broad types deemed to be applicable to clinical practice through iterative discussion: visual interventions, prism adaptation, body awareness interventions, mental function interventions, movement interventions, non-invasive brain stimulation, electrical stimulation, and acupuncture. We assessed the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 65 RCTs with 1951 participants, all of which included people with spatial neglect following stroke. Most studies measured outcomes using standardised neglect assessments. Fifty-one studies measured effects on ADL immediately after completion of the intervention period; only 16 reported persisting effects on ADL (our primary outcome). One study (30 participants) reported discharge destination, and one (24 participants) reported depression. No studies reported falls, balance, or quality of life. Only two studies were judged to be entirely at low risk of bias, and all were small, with fewer than 50 participants per group. We found no definitive (phase 3) clinical trials. None of the studies reported any patient or public involvement. Visual interventions versus any control: evidence is very uncertain about the effects of visual interventions for spatial neglect based on measures of persisting functional ability in ADL (2 studies, 55 participants) (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.57 to 0.49); measures of immediate functional ability in ADL; persisting standardised neglect assessments; and immediate neglect assessments. Prism adaptation versus any control: evidence is very uncertain about the effects of prism adaptation for spatial neglect based on measures of persisting functional ability in ADL (2 studies, 39 participants) (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.93 to 0.35); measures of immediate functional ability in ADL; persisting standardised neglect assessments; and immediate neglect assessments. Body awareness interventions versus any control: evidence is very uncertain about the effects of body awareness interventions for spatial neglect based on measures of persisting functional ability in ADL (5 studies, 125 participants) (SMD 0.61, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.97); measures of immediate functional ability in ADL; persisting standardised neglect assessments; immediate neglect assessments; and adverse events. Mental function interventions versus any control: we found no trials of mental function interventions for spatial neglect reporting on measures of persisting functional ability in ADL. Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of mental function interventions on spatial neglect based on measures of immediate functional ability in ADL and immediate neglect assessments. Movement interventions versus any control: we found no trials of movement interventions for spatial neglect reporting on measures of persisting functional ability in ADL. Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of body awareness interventions on spatial neglect based on measures of immediate functional ability in ADL and immediate neglect assessments. Non-invasive brain stimulation (NIBS) versus any control: evidence is very uncertain about the effects of NIBS on spatial neglect based on measures of persisting functional ability in ADL (3 studies, 92 participants) (SMD 0.35, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.77); measures of immediate functional ability in ADL; persisting standardised neglect assessments; immediate neglect assessments; and adverse events. Electrical stimulation versus any control: we found no trials of electrical stimulation for spatial neglect reporting on measures of persisting functional ability in ADL. Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of electrical stimulation on spatial neglect based on immediate neglect assessments. Acupuncture versus any control: we found no trials of acupuncture for spatial neglect reporting on measures of persisting functional ability in ADL. Evidence is very uncertain about the effects of acupuncture on spatial neglect based on measures of immediate functional ability in ADL and immediate neglect assessments. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for spatial neglect in improving functional ability in ADL and increasing independence remains unproven. Many strategies have been proposed to aid rehabilitation of spatial neglect, but none has yet been sufficiently researched through high-quality fully powered randomised trials to establish potential or adverse effects. As a consequence, no rehabilitation approach can be supported or refuted based on current evidence from RCTs. As recommended by a number of national clinical guidelines, clinicians should continue to provide rehabilitation for neglect that enables people to meet their rehabilitation goals. Clinicians and stroke survivors should have the opportunity, and are strongly encouraged, to participate in research. Future studies need to have appropriate high-quality methodological design, delivery, and reporting to enable appraisal and interpretation of results. Future studies also must evaluate outcomes of importance to patients, such as persisting functional ability in ADL. One way to improve the quality of research is to involve people with experience with the condition in designing and running trials.

Does pre-existing cognitive impairment impact on amount of stroke rehabilitation received? An observational cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine whether stroke survivors in inpatient rehabilitation with pre-existing cognitive impairment receive less therapy than those without. DESIGN: Prospective observational cohort. SETTING: Four UK inpatient stroke rehabilitation units. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 139 stroke patients receiving rehabilitation, able to give informed consent/had an individual available to act as personal consultee. In total, 33 participants were categorized with pre-existing cognitive impairment based on routine documentation by clinicians and 106 without. MEASURES: Number of inpatient therapy sessions received during the first eight weeks post-stroke, referral to early supported discharge, and length of stay. RESULTS: On average, participants with pre-existing cognitive impairment received 40 total physiotherapy and occupational therapy sessions compared to 56 for those without (mean difference = 16.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 2.9, 29.2), which was not fully explained by adjusting for potential confounders (age, sex, National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS), and pre-stroke modified Rankin Scale (mRS)). While those with pre-existing cognitive impairment received nine fewer single-discipline physiotherapy sessions (95% CI = 3.7, 14.8), they received similar amounts of single-discipline occupational therapy, psychology, and speech and language therapy; two more non-patient-facing occupational therapy sessions (95% CI = -4.3, -0.6); and nine fewer patient-facing occupational therapy sessions (95% CI = 3.5, 14.9). There was no evidence to suggest they were discharged earlier, but of the 85 participants discharged within eight weeks, 8 (42%) with pre-existing cognitive impairment were referred to early supported discharge compared to 47 (75%) without. CONCLUSION: People in stroke rehabilitation with pre-existing cognitive impairments receive less therapy than those without, but it remains unknown whether this affects outcomes.

What factors affect clinical decision-making about access to stroke rehabilitation? A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES:: To determine the factors affecting clinical decision-making about which patients should receive stroke rehabilitation. METHODS:: Data sources (MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO) were searched systematically from database inception to August 2018. Full-text English-language studies of data from stroke clinicians were included. Studies of patients were excluded. The included studies were any design focussed on clinical decision-making for referral or admission into stroke rehabilitation. Summary factors were compiled from each included study. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. RESULTS:: After removing duplicates, 1915 papers were identified, of which 13 met the inclusion criteria. Eight included studies were qualitative and one used mixed methods. A total of 292 clinicians were included in the studies. Quality of the included studies was mixed. Patient-level and organizational factors as well as characteristics of individual clinicians contributed to decisions about rehabilitation. The most often described factors were patients' pre- and poststroke function ( n = 6 studies), presence of dementia ( n = 6), patients' social/family support ( n = 6), organizational service pressures ( n = 7) and the decision-making clinician's own knowledge ( n = 5) and emotions ( n = 5). CONCLUSION:: The results highlight a lack of clinical guidance to aid decision-making and reveal that a subjective approach to rehabilitation decision-making influenced by patient-level and organizational factors alongside clinicians' characteristics occurs across services and countries.

What influences decisions about ongoing stroke rehabilitation for patients with pre-existing dementia or cognitive impairment: a qualitative study?

OBJECTIVE: To identify factors influencing clinicians decision-making about ongoing stroke rehabilitation for people with pre-existing dementia/cognitive impairment and the impact on clinical practice. DESIGN: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with stroke specialist healthcare professionals analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING: Acute stroke unit, inpatient stroke rehabilitation units, and community stroke services. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty three professionals from six multidisciplinary stroke teams involved in decision-making about stroke patients' rehabilitation potential and clinical pathways. RESULTS: Factors influencing decision-making about ongoing rehabilitation were (1) gaining understanding of the individual patient, (2) clinician's knowledge of dementia/cognitive impairment, (3) predicting rehabilitation potential, (4) organizational constraints, and (5) clinician's perceptions of their role within the team. Decision-making led to two outcomes, either accommodating the pre-existing dementia/cognitive impairment within delivery of rehabilitation or ending rehabilitation for that patient to allocate limited resources where they were perceived more likely to be effective. Participants felt that patients with pre-existing dementia/cognitive impairment had difficulty demonstrating the required rehabilitation potential within the short timescales available in the current model of service delivery. Participants identified a need for training to improve their knowledge and confidence for decision-making and delivery of rehabilitation for this growing population. CONCLUSION: Clinicians' decision-making about ongoing rehabilitation for patients with prestroke dementia/cognitive impairments is influenced by gaps in their knowledge and by service constraints. Increased training and more flexible, patient-centred services would enable clinicians to better accommodate these patients in rehabilitation.