Bobath therapy is inferior to task-specific training and not superior to other interventions in improving arm activity and arm strength outcomes after stroke: a systematic review.

QUESTION: What is the effect of Bobath therapy on arm activity and arm strength compared with a dose-matched comparison intervention or no intervention after stroke? DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised trials with meta-analysis. PARTICIPANTS: Adults after stroke. INTERVENTION: Bobath therapy compared with no intervention or other interventions delivered at the same dose as the Bobath therapy. OUTCOME MEASURES: Arm activity outcomes and arm strength outcomes. Trial quality was assessed with the PEDro scale. RESULTS: Thirteen trials were included; all compared Bobath with another intervention, which were categorised as: task-specific training (five trials), arm movements (five trials), robotics (two trials) and mental practice (one trial). The PEDro scale scores ranged from 5 to 8. Pooled data from five trials indicated that Bobath therapy was less effective than task-specific training for improving arm activities (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.59 to -0.55). Pooled data from five trials indicated that Bobath therapy was similar to or less effective than arm movements for improving arm activities (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.09). One trial indicated that Bobath therapy was less effective than robotics for improving arm activities and one trial indicated similar effects of Bobath therapy and mental practice on arm activities. For strength outcomes, pooled data from two trials indicated a large benefit of task-specific training over Bobath therapy (SMD -1.08); however, this estimate had substantial uncertainty (95% CI -3.17 to 1.01). The pooled data of three trials indicated that Bobath therapy was less effective than task-specific training for improving Fugl-Meyer scores (MD -7.84, 95% CI -12.99 to -2.69). The effects of Bobath therapy relative to other interventions on strength outcomes remained uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: After stroke, Bobath therapy is less effective than task-specific training and robotics in improving arm activity and less effective than task-specific training on the Fugl-Meyer score. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021251630.

Mobility training for increasing mobility and functioning in older people with frailty.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is common in older people and is characterised by decline across multiple body systems, causing decreased physiological reserve and increased vulnerability to adverse health outcomes. It is estimated that 21% of the community-dwelling population over 65 years are frail. Frailty is independently predictive of falls, worsening mobility, deteriorating functioning, impaired activities of daily living, and death. The World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) defines mobility as: changing and maintaining a body position, walking, and moving. Common interventions used to increase mobility include functional exercises, such as sit-to-stand, walking, or stepping practice. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence for the benefits and safety of mobility training on overall functioning and mobility in frail older people living in the community. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, PEDro, US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (June 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of mobility training on mobility and function in frail people aged 65+ years living in the community. We defined community as those residing either at home or in places that do not provide rehabilitative services or residential health-related care, for example, retirement villages, sheltered housing, or hostels.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We undertook an 'umbrella' comparison of all types of mobility training versus control. MAIN RESULTS: This review included 12 RCTs, with 1317 participants, carried out in 9 countries. The median number of participants in the trials was 97. The mean age of the included participants was 82 years. The majority of trials had unclear or high risk of bias for one or more items. All trials compared mobility training with a control intervention (defined as one that is not thought to improve mobility, such as general health education, social visits, very gentle exercise, or "sham" exercise not expected to impact on mobility). High-certainty evidence showed that mobility training improves the level of mobility upon completion of the intervention period. The mean mobility score was 4.69 in the control group, and with mobility training, this score improved by 1.00 point (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 1.51) on the Short Physical Performance Battery (on a scale of 0 to 12; higher scores indicate better mobility levels) (12 studies, 1151 participants). This is a clinically significant change (minimum clinically important difference: 0.5 points; absolute improvement of 8% (4% higher to 13% higher); number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5 (95% CI 3.00 to 9.00)). This benefit was maintained at six months post-intervention. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for inconsistency) showed that mobility training likely improves the level of functioning upon completion of the intervention. The mean function score was 86.1 in the control group, and with mobility training, this score improved by 8.58 points (95% CI 3.00 to 14.30) on the Barthel Index (on a scale of 0 to 100; higher scores indicate better functioning levels) (9 studies, 916 participants) (absolute improvement of 9% (3% higher to 14% higher)). This result did not reach clinical significance (9.8 points). This benefit did not appear to be maintained six months after the intervention. We are uncertain of the effect of mobility training on adverse events as we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low (downgraded one level for imprecision and two levels for bias). The number of events was 771 per 1000 in the control group and 562 per 1000 in the group with mobility training (risk ratio (RR) 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.88; 2 studies, 225 participants) (absolute difference of 19% fewer (9% fewer to 26% fewer)). Mobility training may result in little to no difference in the number of people who are admitted to nursing care facilities at the end of the intervention period as the 95% confidence interval includes the possibility of both a reduced and increased number of admissions to nursing care facilities (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for imprecision and bias). The number of events was 248 per 1000 in the control group and 208 per 1000 in the group with mobility training (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.34; 1 study, 241 participants) (absolute difference of 4% fewer (8% more to 12% fewer)). Mobility training may result in little to no difference in the number of people who fall as the 95% confidence interval includes the possibility of both a reduced and increased number of fallers (low-certainty evidence, downgraded for imprecision and study design limitations). The number of events was 573 per 1000 in the control group and 584 per 1000 in the group with mobility training (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.20; 2 studies, 425 participants) (absolute improvement of 1% (12% more to 7% fewer)). Mobility training probably results in little to no difference in the death rate at the end of the intervention period as the 95% confidence interval includes the possibility of both a reduced and increased death rate (moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded for bias). The number of events was 51 per 1000 in the control group and 59 per 1000 in the group with mobility training (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.10; 6 studies, 747 participants) (absolute improvement of 1% (6% more to 2% fewer)). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The data in the review supports the use of mobility training for improving mobility in a frail community-dwelling older population. High-certainty evidence shows that compared to control, mobility training improves the level of mobility, and moderate-certainty evidence shows it may improve the level of functioning in frail community-dwelling older people. There is moderate-certainty evidence that the improvement in mobility continues six months post-intervention. Mobility training may make little to no difference to the number of people who fall or are admitted to nursing care facilities, or to the death rate. We are unsure of the effect on adverse events as the certainty of evidence was very low.

Bobath therapy is inferior to task-specific training and not superior to other interventions in improving lower limb activities after stroke: a systematic review.

QUESTION: In adults with stroke, does Bobath therapy improve lower limb activity performance, strength or co-ordination when compared with no intervention or another intervention? DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised trials with meta-analyses. PARTICIPANTS: Adults after stroke. INTERVENTION: Bobath therapy compared with another intervention or no intervention. OUTCOME MEASURES: Lower limb activity performance (eg, sit to stand, walking, balance), lower limb strength and lower limb co-ordination. Trial quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. RESULTS: Twenty-two trials were included in the review and 17 in the meta-analyses. The methodological quality of the trials varied, with PEDro scale scores ranging from 2 to 8 out of 10. No trials compared Bobath therapy to no intervention. Meta-analyses estimated the effect of Bobath therapy on lower limb activities compared with other interventions, including: task-specific training (nine trials), combined interventions (four trials), proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation (one trial) and strength training (two trials). The pooled data indicated that task-specific training has a moderately greater benefit on lower limb activities than Bobath therapy (SMD 0.48), although the true magnitude of the benefit may be substantially larger or smaller than this estimate (95% CI 0.01 to 0.95). Bobath therapy did not clearly improve lower limb activities more than a combined intervention (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.61) or strength training (SMD 0.35, 95% CI -0.37 to 1.08). In one study, Bobath therapy was more effective than proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation for improving standing balance (SMD -1.40, 95% CI -1.92 to -0.88), but these interventions did not differ on any other outcomes. Bobath therapy did not improve strength or co-ordination more than other interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Bobath therapy was inferior to task-specific training and not superior to other interventions, with the exception of proprioceptive neuromuscular facilitation. Prioritising Bobath therapy over other interventions is not supported by current evidence. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019112451.

Digitally enabled aged care and neurological rehabilitation to enhance outcomes with Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) in Australia: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Digitally enabled rehabilitation may lead to better outcomes but has not been tested in large pragmatic trials. We aimed to evaluate a tailored prescription of affordable digital devices in addition to usual care for people with mobility limitations admitted to aged care and neurological rehabilitation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a pragmatic, outcome-assessor-blinded, parallel-group randomised trial in 3 Australian hospitals in Sydney and Adelaide recruiting adults 18 to 101 years old with mobility limitations undertaking aged care and neurological inpatient rehabilitation. Both the intervention and control groups received usual multidisciplinary inpatient and post-hospital rehabilitation care as determined by the treating rehabilitation clinicians. In addition to usual care, the intervention group used devices to target mobility and physical activity problems, individually prescribed by a physiotherapist according to an intervention protocol, including virtual reality video games, activity monitors, and handheld computer devices for 6 months in hospital and at home. Co-primary outcomes were mobility (performance-based Short Physical Performance Battery [SPPB]; continuous version; range 0 to 3; higher score indicates better mobility) and upright time as a proxy measure of physical activity (proportion of the day upright measured with activPAL) at 6 months. The dataset was analysed using intention-to-treat principles. The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614000936628). Between 22 September 2014 and 10 November 2016, 300 patients (mean age 74 years, SD 14; 50% female; 54% neurological condition causing activity limitation) were randomly assigned to intervention (n = 149) or control (n = 151) using a secure online database (REDCap) to achieve allocation concealment. Six-month assessments were completed by 258 participants (129 intervention, 129 control). Intervention participants received on average 12 (SD 11) supervised inpatient sessions using 4 (SD 1) different devices and 15 (SD 5) physiotherapy contacts supporting device use after hospital discharge. Changes in mobility scores were higher in the intervention group compared to the control group from baseline (SPPB [continuous, 0-3] mean [SD]: intervention group, 1.5 [0.7]; control group, 1.5 [0.8]) to 6 months (SPPB [continuous, 0-3] mean [SD]: intervention group, 2.3 [0.6]; control group, 2.1 [0.8]; mean between-group difference 0.2 points, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.3; p = 0.006). However, there was no evidence of a difference between groups for upright time at 6 months (mean [SD] proportion of the day spent upright at 6 months: intervention group, 18.2 [9.8]; control group, 18.4 [10.2]; mean between-group difference -0.2, 95% CI -2.7 to 2.3; p = 0.87). Scores were higher in the intervention group compared to the control group across most secondary mobility outcomes, but there was no evidence of a difference between groups for most other secondary outcomes including self-reported balance confidence and quality of life. No adverse events were reported in the intervention group. Thirteen participants died while in the trial (intervention group: 9; control group: 4) due to unrelated causes, and there was no evidence of a difference between groups in fall rates (unadjusted incidence rate ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.83; p = 0.43). Study limitations include 15%-19% loss to follow-up at 6 months on the co-primary outcomes, as anticipated; the number of secondary outcome measures in our trial, which may increase the risk of a type I error; and potential low statistical power to demonstrate significant between-group differences on important secondary patient-reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed improved mobility in people with a wide range of health conditions making use of digitally enabled rehabilitation, whereas time spent upright was not impacted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Register; ACTRN12614000936628.

Two weeks of additional standing balance circuit classes during inpatient rehabilitation are cost saving and effective: an economic evaluation.

QUESTION: Among people admitted for inpatient rehabilitation, is usual care plus standing balance circuit classes more cost-effective than usual care alone? DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness study embedded within a randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding and intention-to-treat analysis. PARTICIPANTS: 162 rehabilitation inpatients from a metropolitan hospital in Sydney, Australia. INTERVENTION: The experimental group received a 1-hour standing balance circuit class, delivered three times a week for 2 weeks, in addition to usual therapy. The circuit classes were supervised by one physiotherapist and one physiotherapy assistant for up to eight patients. The control group received usual therapy alone. OUTCOME MEASURES: Costs were estimated from routinely collected hospital use data in the 3 months after randomisation. The functional outcome measure was mobility measured at 3 months using the Short Physical Performance Battery administered by a blinded assessor. An incremental analysis was conducted and the joint probability distribution of costs and outcomes was examined using bootstrapping. RESULTS: The median cost savings for the intervention group was AUD4,741 (95% CI 137 to 9,372) per participant; 94% of bootstraps showed that the intervention was both effective and cost saving. CONCLUSIONS: Two weeks of additional standing balance circuit classes delivered in addition to usual therapy resulted in decreased healthcare costs at 3 months in hospital inpatients admitted for rehabilitation. There is a high probability that this intervention is both cost saving and effective. REGISTRATION: ACTRN12611000412932. [Treacy D, Howard K, Hayes A, Hassett L, Schurr K, Sherrington C (2018) Two weeks of additional standing balance circuit classes during inpatient rehabilitation are cost saving and effective: an economic evaluation. Journal of Physiotherapy 64: 41-47].

Stretch for the treatment and prevention of contracture: an abridged republication of a Cochrane Systematic Review.

QUESTION: Is stretch effective for the treatment and prevention of contractures in people with neurological and non-neurological conditions? DESIGN: A Cochrane Systematic Review with meta-analyses of randomised trials. PARTICIPANTS: People with or at risk of contractures. INTERVENTION: Trials were considered for inclusion if they compared stretch to no stretch, or stretch plus co-intervention to co-intervention only. The stretch could be administered in any way. OUTCOME MEASURES: The outcome of interest was joint mobility. Two sets of meta-analyses were conducted with a random-effects model: one for people with neurological conditions and the other for people with non-neurological conditions. The quality of evidence supporting the results of the two sets of meta-analyses was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Eighteen studies involving 549 participants examined the effectiveness of stretch in people with neurological conditions, and provided useable data. The pooled mean difference was 2 deg (95% CI 0 to 3) favouring stretch. This was equivalent to a relative change of 2% (95% CI 0 to 3). Eighteen studies involving 865 participants examined the effectiveness of stretch in people with non-neurological conditions, and provided useable data. The pooled standardised mean difference was 0.2 SD (95% CI 0 to 0.3) favouring stretch. This translated to an absolute mean increase of 1 deg (95% CI 0 to 2) and a relative change of 1% (95% CI 0 to 2). The GRADE level of evidence was high for both sets of meta-analyses. CONCLUSION: Stretch does not have clinically important effects on joint mobility. [Harvey LA, Katalinic OM, Herbert RD, Moseley AM, Lannin NA, Schurr K (2017) Stretch for the treatment and prevention of contracture: an abridged republication of a Cochrane Systematic Review. Journal of Physiotherapy 63: 67-75].

Feasibility of a Nurse-Led Weekend Group Exercise Program for People after Stroke.

Background. Additional physical activity including repetitive task practice can improve outcomes after stroke. The additional practice can be facilitated by therapists and family members or could also be delivered by nursing staff. Objective. To investigate the feasibility of a nurse-led weekend exercise program after stroke. Participants. Individuals after stroke, who participated in a weekend exercise program during their hospital admission. Methods. A retrospective audit of the number of referrals to and amount of exercise repetitions achieved in a nurse-led weekend exercise program was undertaken. The weekend exercise program occurs on each Saturday and Sunday for one hour. The repetitions of exercise completed during each class were documented by staff. An audit was conducted to ascertain the amount and type of exercise completed within the class. Results. During the study period 284 people were referred to the exercise program. The mean number of exercise repetitions completed per participant in each class was 180.7 (SD 205.4). The number of exercise repetitions completed by participants was highly variable ranging from 0 to 1190 per class. Conclusion. The amount of average exercise repetitions completed in the Weekend Warrior program was large but with significant variability. A nurse-led exercise class is a feasible method of delivering exercise opportunities to individuals in hospital after stroke.

Validity of Different Activity Monitors to Count Steps in an Inpatient Rehabilitation Setting.

BACKGROUND: Commonly used activity monitors have been shown to be accurate in counting steps in active people; however, further validation is needed in slower walking populations. OBJECTIVES: To determine the validity of activity monitors for measuring step counts in rehabilitation inpatients compared with visually observed step counts. To explore the influence of gait parameters, activity monitor position, and use of walkers on activity monitor accuracy. METHODS: One hundred and sixty-six inpatients admitted to a rehabilitation unit with an average walking speed of 0.4 m/s (SD 0.2) wore 16 activity monitors (7 different devices in different positions) simultaneously during 6-minute and 6-m walks. The number of steps taken during the tests was also counted by a physical therapist. Gait parameters were assessed using the GAITRite system. To analyze the influence of different gait parameters, the percentage accuracy for each monitor was graphed against various gait parameters for each activity monitor. RESULTS: The StepWatch, Fitbit One worn on the ankle and the ActivPAL showed excellent agreement with observed step count (ICC 2,1 0.98; 0.92; 0.78 respectively). Other devices (Fitbit Charge, Fitbit One worn on hip, G-Sensor, Garmin Vivofit, Actigraph) showed poor agreement with the observed step count (ICC 2,1 0.12-0.40). Percentage agreement with observed step count was highest for the StepWatch (mean 98%). The StepWatch and the Fitbit One worn on the ankle maintained accuracy in individuals who walked more slowly and with shorter strides but other devices were less accurate in these individuals. LIMITATIONS: There were small numbers of participants for some gait parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The StepWatch showed the highest accuracy and closest agreement with observed step count. This device can be confidently used by researchers for accurate measurement of step counts in inpatient rehabilitation in individuals who walk slowly. If immediate feedback is desired, the Fitbit One when worn on the ankle would be the best choice for this population.

Stretch for the treatment and prevention of contractures.

BACKGROUND: Contractures are a common complication of neurological and non-neurological conditions, and are characterised by a reduction in joint mobility. Stretch is widely used for the treatment and prevention of contractures. However, it is not clear whether stretch is effective. This review is an update of the original 2010 version of this review. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this review was to determine the effects of stretch on contractures in people with, or at risk of developing, contractures.The outcomes of interest were joint mobility, quality of life, pain, activity limitations, participation restrictions, spasticity and adverse events. SEARCH METHODS: In November 2015 we searched CENTRAL, DARE, HTA; MEDLINE; Embase; CINAHL; SCI-EXPANDED; PEDro and trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials of stretch applied for the purpose of treating or preventing contractures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The outcomes of interest were joint mobility, quality of life, pain, activity limitations, participation restrictions and adverse events. We evaluated outcomes in the short term (up to one week after the last stretch) and in the long term (more than one week). We expressed effects as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We conducted meta-analyses with a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-nine studies with 2135 participants met the inclusion criteria. No study performed stretch for more than seven months. Just over half the studies (51%) were at low risk of selection bias; all studies were at risk of detection bias for self reported outcomes such as pain and at risk of performance bias due to difficulty of blinding the intervention. However, most studies were at low risk of detection bias for objective outcomes including range of motion, and the majority of studies were free from attrition and selective reporting biases. The effect of these biases were unlikely to be important, given that there was little benefit with treatment. There was high-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important short-term effects on joint mobility in people with neurological conditions (MD 2°; 95% CI 0° to 3°; 26 studies with 699 participants) or non-neurological conditions (SMD 0.2, 95% CI 0 to 0.3, 19 studies with 925 participants).In people with neurological conditions, it was uncertain whether stretch had clinically important short-term effects on pain (SMD 0.2; 95% CI -0.1 to 0.5; 5 studies with 174 participants) or activity limitations (SMD 0.2; 95% CI -0.1 to 0.5; 8 studies with 247 participants). No trials examined the short-term effects of stretch on quality of life or participation restrictions in people with neurological conditions. Five studies involving 145 participants reported eight adverse events including skin breakdown, bruising, blisters and pain but it was not possible to statistically analyse these data.In people with non-neurological conditions, there was high-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important short-term effects on pain (SMD -0.2, 95% CI -0.4 to 0.1; 7 studies with 422 participants) and moderate-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important short-term effects on quality of life (SMD 0.3, 95% CI -0.1 to 0.7; 2 studies with 97 participants). The short-term effect of stretch on activity limitations (SMD 0.1; 95% CI -0.2 to 0.3; 5 studies with 356 participants) and participation restrictions were uncertain (SMD -0.2; 95% CI -0.6 to 0.1; 2 studies with 192 participants). Nine studies involving 635 participants reported 41 adverse events including numbness, pain, Raynauds' phenomenon, venous thrombosis, need for manipulation under anaesthesia, wound infections, haematoma, flexion deficits and swelling but it was not possible to statistically analyse these data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was high-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important effects on joint mobility in people with or without neurological conditions if performed for less than seven months. Sensitivity analyses indicate results were robust in studies at risk of selection and detection biases in comparison to studies at low risk of bias. Sub-group analyses also suggest the effect of stretch is consistent in people with different types of neurological or non-neurological conditions. The effects of stretch performed for periods longer than seven months have not been investigated. There was moderate- and high-quality evidence that stretch did not have clinically important short-term effects on quality of life or pain in people with non-neurological conditions, respectively. The short-term effects of stretch on quality of life and pain in people with neurological conditions, and the short-term effects of stretch on activity limitations and participation restrictions for people with and without neurological conditions are uncertain.

Use of audit, feedback and education increased guideline implementation in a multidisciplinary stroke unit.

BACKGROUND: The audit-feedback cycle is a behaviour change intervention used to reduce evidence-practice gaps. In this study, repeat audits, feedback, education and training were used to change practice and increase compliance with Australian guideline recommendations for stroke rehabilitation. OBJECTIVE: To increase the proportion of patients with stroke receiving best practice screening, assessment and treatment. METHODS: A before-and-after study design was used. Data were collected from medical records (n=15 files per audit). Four audits were conducted between 2009 and 2013. Consecutive files of patients with stroke admitted to the stroke unit were selected and audited retrospectively. Staff behaviour change interventions included four cycles of audit feedback, and education to assist staff with change. The primary outcome measure was the proportion of eligible patients receiving best practice against target behaviours, based on audit data. RESULTS: Between the first and fourth audit (2009 and 2013), 20 of the 27 areas targeted (74%) met or exceeded the minimum target of 10% change. Practice areas that showed the most change included sensation screening (+75%) and rehabilitation (+100%); neglect screening (+92%) and assessment (100%). Some target behaviours showed a drop in compliance such as anxiety and depression screening (-27%) or little or no overall improvement such as patient education about stroke (6% change). CONCLUSIONS: Audit feedback and education increased the proportion of inpatients with stroke receiving best practice rehabilitation in some, but not all practice areas. An ongoing process of quality improvement is needed to help sustain these improvements.

Effect of affordable technology on physical activity levels and mobility outcomes in rehabilitation: a protocol for the Activity and MObility UsiNg Technology (AMOUNT) rehabilitation trial.

INTRODUCTION: People with mobility limitations can benefit from rehabilitation programmes that provide a high dose of exercise. However, since providing a high dose of exercise is logistically challenging and resource-intensive, people in rehabilitation spend most of the day inactive. This trial aims to evaluate the effect of the addition of affordable technology to usual care on physical activity and mobility in people with mobility limitations admitted to inpatient aged and neurological rehabilitation units compared to usual care alone. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A pragmatic, assessor blinded, parallel-group randomised trial recruiting 300 consenting rehabilitation patients with reduced mobility will be conducted. Participants will be individually randomised to intervention or control groups. The intervention group will receive technology-based exercise to target mobility and physical activity problems for 6 months. The technology will include the use of video and computer games/exercises and tablet applications as well as activity monitors. The control group will not receive any additional intervention and both groups will receive usual inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation care over the 6-month study period. The coprimary outcomes will be objectively assessed physical activity (proportion of the day spent upright) and mobility (Short Physical Performance Battery) at 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes will include: self-reported and objectively assessed physical activity, mobility, cognition, activity performance and participation, utility-based quality of life, balance confidence, technology self-efficacy, falls and service utilisation. Linear models will assess the effect of group allocation for each continuously scored outcome measure with baseline scores entered as a covariate. Fall rates between groups will be compared using negative binomial regression. Primary analyses will be preplanned, conducted while masked to group allocation and use an intention-to-treat approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The protocol has been approved by the relevant Human Research Ethics Committees and the results will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12614000936628. Pre-results.

After-hours or weekend rehabilitation improves outcomes and increases physical activity but does not affect length of stay: a systematic review.

QUESTION: In adults undergoing inpatient rehabilitation, does additional after-hours rehabilitation decrease length of stay and improve functional outcome, activities of daily living performance and physical activity? DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised trials. PARTICIPANTS: Adults participating in an inpatient rehabilitation program. INTERVENTION: Additional rehabilitation provided after hours (evening or weekend). OUTCOME MEASURES: Function was measured with tests such as the Motor Assessment Scale, 10-m walk test, the Timed Up and Go test, and Berg Balance Scale. Performance on activities of daily living was measured with the Barthel index or the Functional Independence Measure. Length of stay was measured in days. Physical activity levels were measured as number of steps or time spent upright. Standardised mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) were used to combine these outcomes. Adverse events were summarised using relative risks (RR). Study quality was assessed using PEDro scores. RESULTS: Seven trials were included in the review. All trials had strong methodological quality, scoring 8/10 on the PEDro scale. Among the measures of function, only balance showed a significant effect: the MD was 14 points better (95% CI 5 to 23) with additional after-hours rehabilitation on a 0-to-56-point scale. The improvement in activities of daily living performance with additional after-hours rehabilitation was of borderline statistical significance (SMD 0.10, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.21). Hospital length of stay did not differ significantly (MD -1.8 days, 95% CI -5.1 to 1.6). Those receiving additional rehabilitation had significantly higher step counts and spent significantly more time upright. Overall, the risk of adverse events was not increased by the provision of after-hours or weekend rehabilitation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.10). CONCLUSION: Additional after-hours rehabilitation can increase physical activity and may improve activities of daily living, but does not seem to affect the hospital length of stay. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42014007648. [Scrivener K, Jones T, Schurr K, Graham PL, Dean CM (2015) After-hours or weekend rehabilitation improves outcomes and increases physical activity but does not affect length of stay: a systematic review.Journal of Physiotherapy61: 61-67].

Additional standing balance circuit classes during inpatient rehabilitation improved balance outcomes: an assessor-blinded randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: to evaluate the impact on balance (postural control) of six 1-h circuit classes that targeted balance in addition to usual therapy for rehabilitation inpatients. DESIGN: a randomised controlled trial with 2-week and 3-month follow-up. PARTICIPANTS: one hundred and sixty-two general rehabilitation inpatients, Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital, Australia. INTERVENTION: intervention group participants received six 1-h circuit classes over a 2-week period in addition to usual therapy. Control group participants received usual therapy. RESULTS: standing balance performance (primary outcome) was better in the intervention group than in the control group at 2 weeks (between-group difference after adjusting for baseline values 3.3 s; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 5.7, P = 0.009), but the between-group difference was not statistically significant at 3 months (3.4 s; 95% CI -0.56 to 7.38, P = 0.092). Intervention group outcomes were significantly better than the control groups for mobility performance (Short Physical Performance Battery) at 2 weeks (1.19, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.87, P <0.01) and 3 months (1.00, 95% CI 0.00 to 2.00, P < 0.049) and self-reported functioning (AM-PAC) at 2 weeks (5.39, 95% CI 1.20 to 9.57, P = 0.012). The intervention group had a 4.1-day shorter rehabilitation unit stay (95% CI -8.3 to 0.16, P = 0.059) and a lower risk of readmission in the 3 months after randomisation (incidence rate ratio 0.70, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.18, P = 0.184), but these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: two weeks of standing balance circuit classes in addition to usual therapy improved balance in general rehabilitation inpatients at 2 weeks.

Responsiveness of the ten-metre walk test, Step Test and Motor Assessment Scale in inpatient care after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Responsiveness of a measurement tool is its ability to detect change over time. The aim of this study was to determine the responsiveness and floor/ceiling effects of the ten-metre walk test (10mWT), Step Test and Motor Assessment Scale (MAS) lower limb items. METHODS: An inception cohort study was conducted, including 190 stroke survivors admitted to a comprehensive stroke unit. The 10mWT, Step Test and MAS were administered within 48 hours of admission and repeated in the 48 hours before discharge. Responsiveness was analysed with Effect Size (ES), Standardised Response Mean (SRM) and a median-based Effect Size (mES). Floor/ceiling effects were calculated as the percentage of participants scoring the lowest/highest possible scores. RESULTS: Responsiveness of each outcome measure varied according to the statistic used. Values for the 10mWT were ES 1.44, SRM 0.93, mES 0.45; the step test ES 1.99, SRM 0.88, mES 0.36; MAS sit-to-stand (item 4) score ES 1.27, SRM 1.00, mES 0.50; and for MAS item 5 (walking) ES 1.43, SRM 1.10, mES 0.50. The MAS item 3 (sitting balance) was moderately responsive in all analyses (ES 0.72, SRM 0.71, mES 0.50). The MAS mobility score (summed items 3-5) consistently showed large responsiveness (ES 1.42, SRM 1.16, mES 0.92). The Step Test had the highest proportion of participants who didn't change (46%) and item 4 of the MAS showed the largest ceiling effect on discharge (44%). CONCLUSIONS: Most measures were able to detect change in motor performance during inpatient stroke rehabilitation but the MAS mobility score was the only measure that demonstrated large responsiveness and no marked floor or ceiling effects.

Barriers and enablers to implementing multiple stroke guideline recommendations: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Translating evidence into practice is an important final step in the process of evidence-based practice. Medical record audits can be used to examine how well practice compares with published evidence, and identify evidence-practice gaps. After providing audit feedback to professionals, local barriers to practice change can be identified and targetted with focussed behaviour change interventions. This study aimed to identify barriers and enablers to implementing multiple stroke guideline recommendations at one Australian stroke unit. METHODS: A qualitative methodology was used. A sample of 28 allied health, nursing and medical professionals participated in a group or individual interview. These interviews occurred after staff had received audit feedback and identified areas for practice change. Questions focused on barriers and enablers to implementing guideline recommendations about management of: upper limb sensory impairments, mobility including sitting balance; vision; anxiety and depression; neglect; swallowing; communication; education for stroke survivors and carers; advice about return to work and driving. Qualitative data were analysed for themes using theoretical domains described by Michie and colleagues (2005). RESULTS: Six group and two individual interviews were conducted, involving six disciplines. Barriers were different across disciplines. The six key barriers identified were: (1) Beliefs about capabilities of individual professionals and their discipline, and about patient capabilities (2) Beliefs about the consequences, positive and negative, of implementing the recommendations (3) Memory of, and attention to, best practices (4) Knowledge and skills required to implement best practice; (5) Intention and motivation to implement best practice, and (6) Resources. Some barriers were also enablers to change. For example, occupational therapists required new knowledge and skills (a barrier), to better manage sensation and neglect impairments while physiotherapists generally knew how to implement best-practice mobility rehabilitation (an enabler). CONCLUSIONS: Findings add to current knowledge about barriers to change and implementation of multiple guideline recommendations. Major challenges included sexuality education and depression screening. Limited knowledge and skills was a common barrier. Knowledge about specific interventions was needed before implementation could commence, and to maintain treatment fidelity. The provision of detailed online intervention protocols and manuals may help clinicians to overcome the knowledge barrier.

Balance circuit classes to improve balance among rehabilitation inpatients: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Impaired balance and mobility are common among rehabilitation inpatients. Poor balance and mobility lead to an increased risk of falling. Specific balance exercise has been shown to improve balance and reduce falls within the community setting. However few studies have measured the effects of balance exercises on balance within the inpatient setting. METHODS/DESIGN: A single centre, randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation, assessor blinding and intention-to-treat analysis. One hundred and sixty two patients admitted to the general rehabilitation ward at Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital will be recruited. Eligible participants will have no medical contraindications to exercise and will be able to: fully weight bear; stand unaided independently for at least 30 seconds; and participate in group therapy sessions with minimal supervision. Participants will be randomly allocated to an intervention group or usual-care control group. Both groups will receive standard rehabilitation intervention that includes physiotherapy mobility training and exercise for at least two hours on each week day. The intervention group will also receive six 1-hour circuit classes of supervised balance exercises designed to maximise the ability to make postural adjustments in standing, stepping and walking. The primary outcome is balance. Balance will be assessed by measuring the total time the participant can stand unsupported in five different positions; feet apart, feet together, semi-tandem, tandem and single-leg-stance. Secondary outcomes include mobility, self reported physical functioning, falls and hospital readmissions. Performance on the outcome measures will be assessed before randomisation and at two-weeks and three-months after randomisation by physiotherapists unaware of intervention group allocation. DISCUSSION: This study will determine the impact of additional balance circuit classes on balance among rehabilitation inpatients. The results will provide essential information to guide evidence-based physiotherapy at the study site as well as across other rehabilitation inpatient settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this study is registered with the Australian New Zealand, Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN=12611000412932.

A systematic review of the responsiveness of lower limb physical performance measures in inpatient care after stroke.

BACKGROUND: Responsiveness refers to a measurement tool's ability to detect change in performance over time. The aim of the review was to summarise studies of responsiveness of lower limb physical performance measures during inpatient care after stroke. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted. Prospective studies that included participants with a diagnosis of stroke, were commenced in the acute or subacute phase of inpatient care and included a measure of a lower limb physical performance were included in this review. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies met these inclusion criteria. A variety of measures were investigated including the Berg Balance Scale, various timed walking tests and the Rivermead Mobility Index. Ten of the included studies had small sample sizes (50 participants or less), 2 studies used a convenience sample rather than consecutive recruitment and 5 studies excluded potential participants with poor physical abilities at baseline. Responsiveness varied between and within studies but was generally large, Effect Size (ES) or Standardised Response Mean (SRM) > 0.8. Measures displaying large responsiveness included the twelve-minute walk test (SRM 1.90) and the Modified Rivermead Mobility Index (SRM 1.31) when re-measured at four weeks after stroke, and the Berg Balance Scale (ES 1.11) and Postural Assessment Scale for Stroke Patients (ES 1.12) when re-measured at approximately six months after stroke. CONCLUSION: Studies conducted to date have generally found physical performance measures after stroke to have large responsiveness i.e., to be able to detect changes. Further investigation of the responsiveness of measurement tools after stroke in larger prospective cohort studies is required.

Exercise dose and mobility outcome in a comprehensive stroke unit: description and prediction from a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the dose of lower limb exercise completed during admission to a stroke unit, establish predictors of dose and explore the relationship between dose and walking outcomes. DESIGN: Inception cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred consecutively-admitted people with stroke. METHODS: Repetitions of exercise completed throughout the admission were tallied. Possible predictors of exercise dose were recorded within 48 h of admission. Walking velocity was assessed at the beginning and end of the hospital stay. RESULTS: Data were available for 191 (96%) participants on discharge. The mean daily dose of lower limb exercise was 288 repetitions (standard deviation (SD) 242), the variability in dose was best explained by age and disability level. The mean improvement in walking velocity was 0.43 m/s (SD 0.46), 26% of variability in walking improvement was explained by exercise repetitions and 29% was explained by a multivariable model including significant contributions from exercise repetitions (p < 0.01) and age (p = 0.03). After controlling for other factors, for every 100 daily repetitions of lower limb exercise there was an additional change in walking velocity of 0.08 m/s (95% CI 0.05 to 0.11, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Exercise dose in a stroke unit is variable and can be predicted by age and disability. Increased exercise dose is associated with improved mobility outcomes.