2213 lines
423 KiB
Text
2213 lines
423 KiB
Text
<!DOCTYPE html>
|
|
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" class="no-js no-jr">
|
|
<head>
|
|
<!-- For pinger, set start time and add meta elements. -->
|
|
<script type="text/javascript">var ncbi_startTime = new Date();</script>
|
|
|
|
<!-- Logger begin -->
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_db" content="books">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_pdid" content="book-toc">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_acc" content="NBK602818">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_domain" content="niceng236er13">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_report" content="reader">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_type" content="fulltext">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_objectid" content="">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_pcid" content="/NBK602818/?report=reader">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_pagename" content="Evidence reviews for self-management - NCBI Bookshelf">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_bookparttype" content="toc">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_app" content="bookshelf">
|
|
<!-- Logger end -->
|
|
|
|
<!--component id="Page" label="meta"/-->
|
|
<script type="text/javascript" src="/corehtml/pmc/jatsreader/ptpmc_3.22/js/jr.boots.min.js"> </script><title>Evidence reviews for self-management - NCBI Bookshelf</title>
|
|
<meta charset="utf-8">
|
|
<meta name="apple-mobile-web-app-capable" content="no">
|
|
<meta name="viewport" content="initial-scale=1,minimum-scale=1,maximum-scale=1,user-scalable=no">
|
|
<meta name="jr-col-layout" content="1">
|
|
<meta name="robots" content="INDEX,FOLLOW,NOARCHIVE,NOIMAGEINDEX">
|
|
<meta name="citation_title" content="Evidence reviews for self-management">
|
|
<meta name="citation_publisher" content="National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)">
|
|
<meta name="citation_date" content="2023/10">
|
|
<meta name="citation_pmid" content="38635800">
|
|
<meta name="citation_fulltext_html_url" content="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK602818/">
|
|
<meta name="citation_keywords" content="Stroke Rehabilitation">
|
|
<meta name="citation_keywords" content="Stroke">
|
|
<meta name="citation_keywords" content="Subarachnoid Hemorrhage">
|
|
<meta name="citation_keywords" content="Self Care">
|
|
<meta name="citation_keywords" content="Treatment Outcome">
|
|
<meta name="citation_keywords" content="Cost-Benefit Analysis">
|
|
<meta name="citation_keywords" content="Adolescent">
|
|
<meta name="citation_keywords" content="Young Adult">
|
|
<meta name="citation_keywords" content="Adult">
|
|
<meta name="citation_keywords" content="Middle Aged">
|
|
<meta name="citation_keywords" content="Aged">
|
|
<meta name="citation_keywords" content="Aged, 80 and over">
|
|
<meta name="citation_keywords" content="Humans">
|
|
<meta name="citation_keywords" content="Review">
|
|
<link rel="schema.DC" href="http://purl.org/DC/elements/1.0/">
|
|
<meta name="DC.Title" content="Evidence reviews for self-management">
|
|
<meta name="DC.Type" content="Text">
|
|
<meta name="DC.Publisher" content="National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)">
|
|
<meta name="DC.Date" content="2023/10">
|
|
<meta name="DC.Identifier" content="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK602818/">
|
|
<meta name="og:title" content="Evidence reviews for self-management">
|
|
<meta name="og:type" content="book">
|
|
<meta name="og:url" content="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK602818/">
|
|
<meta name="og:site_name" content="NCBI Bookshelf">
|
|
<meta name="og:image" content="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/corehtml/pmc/pmcgifs/bookshelf/thumbs/th-niceng236er13-lrg.png">
|
|
<meta name="twitter:card" content="summary">
|
|
<meta name="twitter:site" content="@ncbibooks">
|
|
<meta name="bk-non-canon-loc" content="/books/n/niceng236er13/toc/?report=reader">
|
|
<link rel="canonical" href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK602818/">
|
|
<link href="https://fonts.googleapis.com/css?family=Archivo+Narrow:400,700,400italic,700italic&subset=latin" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css">
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/corehtml/pmc/jatsreader/ptpmc_3.22/css/libs.min.css">
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/corehtml/pmc/jatsreader/ptpmc_3.22/css/jr.min.css">
|
|
<meta name="format-detection" content="telephone=no">
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/corehtml/pmc/css/bookshelf/2.26/css/books.min.css" type="text/css">
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/corehtml/pmc/css/bookshelf/2.26/css//books_print.min.css" type="text/css" media="print">
|
|
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/corehtml/pmc/css/bookshelf/2.26/css/books_reader.min.css" type="text/css">
|
|
<style type="text/css">p a.figpopup{display:inline !important} .bk_tt {font-family: monospace} .first-line-outdent .bk_ref {display: inline} .body-content h2, .body-content .h2 {border-bottom: 1px solid #97B0C8} .body-content h2.inline {border-bottom: none} a.page-toc-label , .jig-ncbismoothscroll a {text-decoration:none;border:0 !important} .temp-labeled-list .graphic {display:inline-block !important} .temp-labeled-list img{width:100%}</style>
|
|
|
|
<link rel="shortcut icon" href="//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/favicon.ico">
|
|
<meta name="ncbi_phid" content="CE8E33217D6BE48100000000010000DD.m_5">
|
|
<meta name='referrer' content='origin-when-cross-origin'/><link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="//static.pubmed.gov/portal/portal3rc.fcgi/4216699/css/3852956/3849091.css"></head>
|
|
<body>
|
|
<!-- Book content! -->
|
|
|
|
|
|
<div id="jr" data-jr-path="/corehtml/pmc/jatsreader/ptpmc_3.22/"><div class="jr-unsupported"><table class="modal"><tr><td><span class="attn inline-block"></span><br />Your browser does not support the NLM PubReader view.<br />Go to <a href="/pmc/about/pr-browsers/">this page</a> to see a list of supported browsers<br />or return to the <br /><a href="/books/NBK602818/?report=classic">regular view</a>.</td></tr></table></div><div id="jr-ui" class="hidden"><nav id="jr-head"><div class="flexh tb"><div id="jr-tb1"><a id="jr-links-sw" class="hidden" title="Links"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" version="1.1" x="0px" y="0px" viewBox="0 0 70.6 85.3" style="enable-background:new 0 0 70.6 85.3;vertical-align:middle" xml:space="preserve" width="24" height="24">
|
|
<style type="text/css">.st0{fill:#939598;}</style>
|
|
<g>
|
|
<path class="st0" d="M36,0C12.8,2.2-22.4,14.6,19.6,32.5C40.7,41.4-30.6,14,35.9,9.8"></path>
|
|
<path class="st0" d="M34.5,85.3c23.2-2.2,58.4-14.6,16.4-32.5c-21.1-8.9,50.2,18.5-16.3,22.7"></path>
|
|
<path class="st0" d="M34.7,37.1c66.5-4.2-4.8-31.6,16.3-22.7c42.1,17.9,6.9,30.3-16.4,32.5h1.7c-66.2,4.4,4.8,31.6-16.3,22.7 c-42.1-17.9-6.9-30.3,16.4-32.5"></path>
|
|
</g>
|
|
</svg> Books</a></div><div class="jr-rhead f1 flexh"></div><div id="jr-tb2"><a id="jr-bkhelp-sw" class="btn wsprkl hidden" title="Help with NLM PubReader">?</a><a id="jr-help-sw" class="btn wsprkl hidden" title="Settings and typography in NLM PubReader"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 512 512" preserveAspectRatio="none"><path d="M462,283.742v-55.485l-29.981-10.662c-11.431-4.065-20.628-12.794-25.274-24.001 c-0.002-0.004-0.004-0.009-0.006-0.013c-4.659-11.235-4.333-23.918,0.889-34.903l13.653-28.724l-39.234-39.234l-28.72,13.652 c-10.979,5.219-23.68,5.546-34.908,0.889c-0.005-0.002-0.01-0.003-0.014-0.005c-11.215-4.65-19.933-13.834-24-25.273L283.741,50 h-55.484l-10.662,29.981c-4.065,11.431-12.794,20.627-24.001,25.274c-0.005,0.002-0.009,0.004-0.014,0.005 c-11.235,4.66-23.919,4.333-34.905-0.889l-28.723-13.653l-39.234,39.234l13.653,28.721c5.219,10.979,5.545,23.681,0.889,34.91 c-0.002,0.004-0.004,0.009-0.006,0.013c-4.649,11.214-13.834,19.931-25.271,23.998L50,228.257v55.485l29.98,10.661 c11.431,4.065,20.627,12.794,25.274,24c0.002,0.005,0.003,0.01,0.005,0.014c4.66,11.236,4.334,23.921-0.888,34.906l-13.654,28.723 l39.234,39.234l28.721-13.652c10.979-5.219,23.681-5.546,34.909-0.889c0.005,0.002,0.01,0.004,0.014,0.006 c11.214,4.649,19.93,13.833,23.998,25.271L228.257,462h55.484l10.595-29.79c4.103-11.538,12.908-20.824,24.216-25.525 c0.005-0.002,0.009-0.004,0.014-0.006c11.127-4.628,23.694-4.311,34.578,0.863l28.902,13.738l39.234-39.234l-13.66-28.737 c-5.214-10.969-5.539-23.659-0.886-34.877c0.002-0.005,0.004-0.009,0.006-0.014c4.654-11.225,13.848-19.949,25.297-24.021 L462,283.742z M256,331.546c-41.724,0-75.548-33.823-75.548-75.546s33.824-75.547,75.548-75.547 c41.723,0,75.546,33.824,75.546,75.547S297.723,331.546,256,331.546z"></path></svg></a><a id="jr-fip-sw" class="btn wsprkl hidden" title="Find"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 550 600" preserveAspectRatio="none"><path fill="none" stroke="#000" stroke-width="36" stroke-linecap="round" style="fill:#FFF" d="m320,350a153,153 0 1,0-2,2l170,170m-91-117 110,110-26,26-110-110"></path></svg></a><a id="jr-cmap-sw" class="btn wsprkl hidden" title="Table of Contents"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 100 100" preserveAspectRatio="none"><path d="M20,20h10v8H20V20zM36,20h44v8H36V20zM20,37.33h10v8H20V37.33zM36,37.33h44v8H36V37.33zM20,54.66h10v8H20V54.66zM36,54.66h44v8H36V54.66zM20,72h10v8 H20V72zM36,72h44v8H36V72z"></path></svg></a></div></div></nav><nav id="jr-dash" class="noselect"><nav id="jr-dash" class="noselect"><div id="jr-pi" class="hidden"><a id="jr-pi-prev" class="hidden" title="Previous page"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 100 100" preserveAspectRatio="none"><path d="M75,30 c-80,60 -80,0 0,60 c-30,-60 -30,0 0,-60"></path><text x="20" y="28" textLength="60" style="font-size:25px">Prev</text></svg></a><div class="pginfo">Page <i class="jr-pg-pn">0</i> of <i class="jr-pg-lp">0</i></div><a id="jr-pi-next" class="hidden" title="Next page"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 100 100" preserveAspectRatio="none"><path d="M25,30c80,60 80,0 0,60 c30,-60 30,0 0,-60"></path><text x="20" y="28" textLength="60" style="font-size:25px">Next</text></svg></a></div><div id="jr-is-tb"><a id="jr-is-sw" class="btn wsprkl hidden" title="Switch between Figures/Tables strip and Progress bar"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 100 100" preserveAspectRatio="none"><rect x="10" y="40" width="20" height="20"></rect><rect x="40" y="40" width="20" height="20"></rect><rect x="70" y="40" width="20" height="20"></rect></svg></a></div><nav id="jr-istrip" class="istrip hidden"><a id="jr-is-prev" href="#" class="hidden" title="Previous"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 100 100" preserveAspectRatio="none"><path d="M80,40 60,65 80,90 70,90 50,65 70,40z M50,40 30,65 50,90 40,90 20,65 40,40z"></path><text x="35" y="25" textLength="60" style="font-size:25px">Prev</text></svg></a><a id="jr-is-next" href="#" class="hidden" title="Next"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 100 100" preserveAspectRatio="none"><path d="M20,40 40,65 20,90 30,90 50,65 30,40z M50,40 70,65 50,90 60,90 80,65 60,40z"></path><text x="15" y="25" textLength="60" style="font-size:25px">Next</text></svg></a></nav><nav id="jr-progress"></nav></nav></nav><aside id="jr-links-p" class="hidden flexv"><div class="tb sk-htbar flexh"><div><a class="jr-p-close btn wsprkl">Done</a></div><div class="title-text f1">NCBI Bookshelf</div></div><div class="cnt lol f1"><a href="/books/">Home</a><a href="/books/browse/">Browse All Titles</a><a class="btn share" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK602818/"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 33 33" style="vertical-align:middle" width="24" height="24" preserveAspectRatio="none"><g><path d="M 17.996,32L 12,32 L 12,16 l-4,0 l0-5.514 l 4-0.002l-0.006-3.248C 11.993,2.737, 13.213,0, 18.512,0l 4.412,0 l0,5.515 l-2.757,0 c-2.063,0-2.163,0.77-2.163,2.209l-0.008,2.76l 4.959,0 l-0.585,5.514L 18,16L 17.996,32z"></path></g></svg> Share on Facebook</a><a class="btn share" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" href="https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK602818/&text=Evidence%20reviews%20for%20self-management"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 33 33" style="vertical-align:middle" width="24" height="24"><g><path d="M 32,6.076c-1.177,0.522-2.443,0.875-3.771,1.034c 1.355-0.813, 2.396-2.099, 2.887-3.632 c-1.269,0.752-2.674,1.299-4.169,1.593c-1.198-1.276-2.904-2.073-4.792-2.073c-3.626,0-6.565,2.939-6.565,6.565 c0,0.515, 0.058,1.016, 0.17,1.496c-5.456-0.274-10.294-2.888-13.532-6.86c-0.565,0.97-0.889,2.097-0.889,3.301 c0,2.278, 1.159,4.287, 2.921,5.465c-1.076-0.034-2.088-0.329-2.974-0.821c-0.001,0.027-0.001,0.055-0.001,0.083 c0,3.181, 2.263,5.834, 5.266,6.438c-0.551,0.15-1.131,0.23-1.73,0.23c-0.423,0-0.834-0.041-1.235-0.118 c 0.836,2.608, 3.26,4.506, 6.133,4.559c-2.247,1.761-5.078,2.81-8.154,2.81c-0.53,0-1.052-0.031-1.566-0.092 c 2.905,1.863, 6.356,2.95, 10.064,2.95c 12.076,0, 18.679-10.004, 18.679-18.68c0-0.285-0.006-0.568-0.019-0.849 C 30.007,8.548, 31.12,7.392, 32,6.076z"></path></g></svg> Share on Twitter</a></div></aside><aside id="jr-cmap-p" class="hidden flexv"><div class="tb sk-htbar flexh"><div><a class="jr-p-close btn wsprkl">Done</a></div><div class="title-text f1">In Page Navigation</div></div><div class="cnt lol f1"><a href="/books/n/niceercollect/?report=reader">NICE Evidence Reviews Collection</a><a class="current">Title Information</a></div></aside><aside id="jr-help-p" class="hidden flexv"><div class="tb sk-htbar flexh"><div><a class="jr-p-close btn wsprkl">Done</a></div><div class="title-text f1">Settings</div></div><div class="cnt f1"><div id="jr-typo-p" class="typo"><div><a class="sf btn wsprkl">A-</a><a class="lf btn wsprkl">A+</a></div><div><a class="bcol-auto btn wsprkl"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 200 100" preserveAspectRatio="none"><text x="10" y="70" style="font-size:60px;font-family: Trebuchet MS, ArialMT, Arial, sans-serif" textLength="180">AUTO</text></svg></a><a class="bcol-1 btn wsprkl"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 100 100" preserveAspectRatio="none"><path d="M15,25 85,25zM15,40 85,40zM15,55 85,55zM15,70 85,70z"></path></svg></a><a class="bcol-2 btn wsprkl"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 100 100" preserveAspectRatio="none"><path d="M5,25 45,25z M55,25 95,25zM5,40 45,40z M55,40 95,40zM5,55 45,55z M55,55 95,55zM5,70 45,70z M55,70 95,70z"></path></svg></a></div></div><div class="lol"><a class="" href="/books/NBK602818/?report=classic">Switch to classic view</a><a href="/books/n/niceng236er13/pdf/">PDF (3.0M)</a><a href="/books/n/niceng236er13/toc/?report=printable">Print View</a></div></div></aside><aside id="jr-bkhelp-p" class="hidden flexv"><div class="tb sk-htbar flexh"><div><a class="jr-p-close btn wsprkl">Done</a></div><div class="title-text f1">Help</div></div><div class="cnt f1 lol"><a id="jr-helpobj-sw" data-path="/corehtml/pmc/jatsreader/ptpmc_3.22/" data-href="/corehtml/pmc/jatsreader/ptpmc_3.22/img/bookshelf/help.xml" href="">Help</a><a href="mailto:info@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov?subject=PubReader%20feedback%20%2F%20NBK602818%20%2F%20sid%3ACE8B5AF87C7FFCB1_0191SID%20%2F%20phid%3ACE8E33217D6BE48100000000010000DD.4">Send us feedback</a><a id="jr-about-sw" data-path="/corehtml/pmc/jatsreader/ptpmc_3.22/" data-href="/corehtml/pmc/jatsreader/ptpmc_3.22/img/bookshelf/about.xml" href="">About PubReader</a></div></aside><aside id="jr-objectbox" class="thidden hidden"><div class="jr-objectbox-close wsprkl">✘</div><div class="jr-objectbox-inner cnt"><div class="jr-objectbox-drawer"></div></div></aside><nav id="jr-pm-left" class="hidden"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 40 800" preserveAspectRatio="none"><text font-stretch="ultra-condensed" x="800" y="-15" text-anchor="end" transform="rotate(90)" font-size="18" letter-spacing=".1em">Previous Page</text></svg></nav><nav id="jr-pm-right" class="hidden"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 40 800" preserveAspectRatio="none"><text font-stretch="ultra-condensed" x="800" y="-15" text-anchor="end" transform="rotate(90)" font-size="18" letter-spacing=".1em">Next Page</text></svg></nav><nav id="jr-fip" class="hidden"><nav id="jr-fip-term-p"><input type="search" placeholder="search this page" id="jr-fip-term" autocorrect="off" autocomplete="off" /><a id="jr-fip-mg" class="wsprkl btn" title="Find"><svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" viewBox="0 0 550 600" preserveAspectRatio="none"><path fill="none" stroke="#000" stroke-width="36" stroke-linecap="round" style="fill:#FFF" d="m320,350a153,153 0 1,0-2,2l170,170m-91-117 110,110-26,26-110-110"></path></svg></a><a id="jr-fip-done" class="wsprkl btn" title="Dismiss find">✘</a></nav><nav id="jr-fip-info-p"><a id="jr-fip-prev" class="wsprkl btn" title="Jump to previuos match">◀</a><button id="jr-fip-matches">no matches yet</button><a id="jr-fip-next" class="wsprkl btn" title="Jump to next match">▶</a></nav></nav></div><div id="jr-epub-interstitial" class="hidden"></div><div id="jr-content"><article data-type="main"><div class="main-content lit-style"><div class="fm-sec bkr_bottom_sep"><div class="bkr_thumb"><a href="https://www.nice.org.uk" title="National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)" class="img_link icnblk_img" ref="pagearea=logo&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=publisher"><img class="source-thumb" src="/corehtml/pmc/pmcgifs/bookshelf/thumbs/th-niceng236er13-lrg.png" alt="Cover of Evidence reviews for self-management" /></a></div><div class="bkr_bib"><h1 id="_NBK602818_"><span itemprop="name">Evidence reviews for self-management</span></h1><div class="subtitle">Stroke rehabilitation in adults (update)</div><p><b>Evidence review F</b></p><p><i>NICE Guideline, No. 236</i></p><div class="half_rhythm">London: <a href="https://www.nice.org.uk" ref="pagearea=meta&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=publisher"><span itemprop="publisher">National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)</span></a>; <span itemprop="datePublished">2023 Oct</span>.<div class="small">ISBN-13: <span itemprop="isbn">978-1-4731-5455-1</span></div></div><div><a href="/books/about/copyright/">Copyright</a> © NICE 2023.</div></div><div class="bkr_clear"></div></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1"><h2 id="_niceng236er13_s1_">1. Self-management</h2><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1"><h3>1.1. Review question</h3><p>In people after stroke, what is the clinical and cost effectiveness of self-management and/or supported self-management compared with usual rehabilitation?</p><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.1"><h4>1.1.1. Introduction</h4><p>Self-care management usually takes the form of a tailored education programme designed to enable a stroke survivor to take a more active approach to his or her own management and goals. It usually has the following components: problem solving by improved knowledge of a stroke, decision-making and individual goal setting with an action plan, knowledge and access to available community resources and training in how to ask for help.</p></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.2"><h4>1.1.2. Summary of the protocol</h4><div class="iconblock whole_rhythm clearfix ten_col table-wrap" id="figniceng236er13tab1"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab1/?report=objectonly" target="object" title="Table 1" class="img_link icnblk_img" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13tab1"><img class="small-thumb" src="/corehtml/pmc/css/bookshelf/2.26/img/table-icon.gif" alt="Table Icon" /></a><div class="icnblk_cntnt"><h4 id="niceng236er13.tab1"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab1/?report=objectonly" target="object" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13tab1">Table 1</a></h4><p class="float-caption no_bottom_margin">PICO characteristics of review question. </p></div></div><p>For full details see the review protocol in <a href="#niceng236er13.appa">Appendix A</a>.</p></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.3"><h4>1.1.3. Methods and process</h4><p>This evidence review was developed using the methods and process described in <a href="https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20/chapter/introduction-and-overview" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=uri">Developing NICE guidelines: the manual</a>. Methods specific to this review question are described in the review protocol in <a href="#niceng236er13.appa">Appendix A</a> and the <a href="/books/NBK602818/bin/supp_NG236_Methods_20231018.pdf">methods</a> document.</p><p>Declarations of interest were recorded according to <a href="https://www.nice.org.uk/about/who-we-are/policies-and-procedures" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=uri">NICE’s conflicts of interest policy</a>.</p></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.4"><h4>1.1.4. Effectiveness evidence</h4><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.4.1"><h5>1.1.4.1. Included studies</h5><p>One systematic review<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref10" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref10"><sup>10</sup></a> and in total twenty randomised controlled trials (twenty six papers) and two cluster randomised controlled trial studies were included in the review;<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref1" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref1"><sup>1</sup></a><sup>–</sup><a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref9" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref9"><sup>9</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref11" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref11"><sup>11</sup></a><sup>–</sup><a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16"><sup>16</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref18" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref18"><sup>18</sup></a><sup>–</sup><a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref26" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref26"><sup>26</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref30" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref30"><sup>30</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref31" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref31"><sup>31</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref33" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref33"><sup>33</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref35" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref35"><sup>35</sup></a> these are summarised in <a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab2/?report=objectonly" target="object" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13tab2">Table 2</a> below. Evidence from these studies is summarised in the clinical evidence summary below (<a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab3/?report=objectonly" target="object" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13tab3">Table 3</a>).</p><p>This review updated a previous Cochrane review, Fryer 2016<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref10" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref10"><sup>10</sup></a>. This review included fourteen studies in a quantitative synthesis<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref2" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref2"><sup>2</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref4" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref4"><sup>4</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref7" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref7"><sup>7</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref9" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref9"><sup>9</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref13" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref13"><sup>13</sup></a><sup>–</sup><a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16"><sup>16</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref19" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref19"><sup>19</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref21" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref21"><sup>21</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref23" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref23"><sup>23</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref25" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref25"><sup>25</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref30" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref30"><sup>30</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref34" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref34"><sup>34</sup></a>, all of these studies were included in the review. However, as was the case in the Cochrane review, no quantitative outcomes that could be used in the review was reported by one study<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref7" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref7"><sup>7</sup></a>. This study was included, as it had been included in the Cochrane review, but was noted to report no usable outcomes and so does not contribute to the analysis.</p><p>All the evidence was in people who had suffered a first or recurrent stroke, with no people with transient ischemic attacks included. There was a large range of post-stroke durations, ranging from 45 days to 11 years, representing a broad sample of the stroke survivor population. Stroke severity was generally poorly reported, although those reporting severity indicated a wide range, with mean Barthel Index’s ranging from 14 to 88.</p><p>The majority of studies compared self-management interventions to inactive controls (25 studies), including usual care, with a limited amount of evidence for the comparison between self-management and active controls (3 studies). There was significant variation in the content and frequency of contact with healthcare professionals in the self-management interventions. The most commonly applied strategies utilised were goal setting, education and workbooks which people used to help direct their self-care. Frequencies of contact ranged from a single session through to telephone follow-up multiple times per week, although the majority of interventions consisted of weekly contacts.</p><p>No evidence was available for the following outcomes for the comparison between self-management and inactive controls:
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Health service usage (emergency department visits and general practitioner attendance)</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Participant satisfaction</div></li></ul></p><p>No evidence was available for the following outcomes for the comparison between self-management and active controls:
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Carer generic health-related quality of life</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Activities of daily living</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Participation restrictions</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Health service usage (emergency department visits)</div></li></ul></p><p>
|
|
<b>Inconsistency</b>
|
|
</p><p>Where heterogeneity was present, subgrouping was not possible due to the small number of studies included in the relevant analyses. In these cases, the evidence was downgraded in GRADE for inconsistency and analysed using a random effects model.</p><p>See also the study selection flow chart in <a href="#niceng236er13.appc">Appendix C</a>, study evidence tables in <a href="#niceng236er13.appd">Appendix D</a>, forest plots in <a href="#niceng236er13.appe">Appendix E</a>, and GRADE tables in <a href="#niceng236er13.appf">Appendix F</a>.</p></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.4.2"><h5>1.1.4.2. Excluded studies</h5><p>See the excluded studies list in <a href="#niceng236er13.appj">Appendix J</a>.</p></div></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.5"><h4>1.1.5. Summary of studies included in the effectiveness evidence</h4><div class="iconblock whole_rhythm clearfix ten_col table-wrap" id="figniceng236er13tab2"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab2/?report=objectonly" target="object" title="Table 2" class="img_link icnblk_img" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13tab2"><img class="small-thumb" src="/corehtml/pmc/css/bookshelf/2.26/img/table-icon.gif" alt="Table Icon" /></a><div class="icnblk_cntnt"><h4 id="niceng236er13.tab2"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab2/?report=objectonly" target="object" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13tab2">Table 2</a></h4><p class="float-caption no_bottom_margin">Summary of studies included in the evidence review. </p></div></div><p>See <a href="#niceng236er13.appd">Appendix D</a> for full evidence tables.</p></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.6"><h4>1.1.6. Summary of the effectiveness evidence</h4><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.6.1"><h5>1.1.6.1. Self-management compared to inactive control</h5><div class="iconblock whole_rhythm clearfix ten_col table-wrap" id="figniceng236er13tab3"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab3/?report=objectonly" target="object" title="Table 3" class="img_link icnblk_img" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13tab3"><img class="small-thumb" src="/corehtml/pmc/css/bookshelf/2.26/img/table-icon.gif" alt="Table Icon" /></a><div class="icnblk_cntnt"><h4 id="niceng236er13.tab3"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab3/?report=objectonly" target="object" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13tab3">Table 3</a></h4><p class="float-caption no_bottom_margin">Clinical evidence summary: self-management compared to inactive control. </p></div></div></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.6.2"><h5>1.1.6.2. Self-management compared to active control</h5><div class="iconblock whole_rhythm clearfix ten_col table-wrap" id="figniceng236er13tab4"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab4/?report=objectonly" target="object" title="Table 4" class="img_link icnblk_img" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13tab4"><img class="small-thumb" src="/corehtml/pmc/css/bookshelf/2.26/img/table-icon.gif" alt="Table Icon" /></a><div class="icnblk_cntnt"><h4 id="niceng236er13.tab4"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab4/?report=objectonly" target="object" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13tab4">Table 4</a></h4><p class="float-caption no_bottom_margin">Clinical evidence summary: self-management compared to active control. </p></div></div></div></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.7"><h4>1.1.7. Economic evidence</h4><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.7.1"><h5>1.1.7.1. Included studies</h5><p>Four health economic studies with relevant comparisons were included in this review.<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref8" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref8"><sup>8</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16"><sup>16</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref32" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref32"><sup>32</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref35" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref35"><sup>35</sup></a> One study compared a self-management intervention to an active control intervention<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref35" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref35"><sup>35</sup></a>, while the remaining three studies had an inactive control intervention.<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref8" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref8"><sup>8</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16"><sup>16</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref32" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref32"><sup>32</sup></a></p><p>Note that the study with an active control as the comparator<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16"><sup>16</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref35" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref35"><sup>35</sup></a> was also included as part of the community participation review for this guideline. These are summarised in the health economic evidence profiles below (<a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab5/?report=objectonly" target="object" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13tab5">Table 5</a> and <a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab6/?report=objectonly" target="object" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13tab6">Table 6</a>) and the health economic evidence tables in <a href="#niceng236er13.apph">Appendix H</a>.</p></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.7.2"><h5>1.1.7.2. Excluded studies</h5><p>No relevant health economic studies were excluded due to assessment of limited applicability or methodological limitations.</p><p>See also the health economic study selection flow chart in <a href="#niceng236er13.appg">Appendix G</a>.</p></div></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.8"><h4>1.1.8. Summary of included economic evidence</h4><div class="iconblock whole_rhythm clearfix ten_col table-wrap" id="figniceng236er13tab5"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab5/?report=objectonly" target="object" title="Table 5" class="img_link icnblk_img" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13tab5"><img class="small-thumb" src="/corehtml/pmc/css/bookshelf/2.26/img/table-icon.gif" alt="Table Icon" /></a><div class="icnblk_cntnt"><h4 id="niceng236er13.tab5"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab5/?report=objectonly" target="object" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13tab5">Table 5</a></h4><p class="float-caption no_bottom_margin">Health economic evidence profile: Self-management versus inactive control. </p></div></div><div class="iconblock whole_rhythm clearfix ten_col table-wrap" id="figniceng236er13tab6"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab6/?report=objectonly" target="object" title="Table 6" class="img_link icnblk_img" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13tab6"><img class="small-thumb" src="/corehtml/pmc/css/bookshelf/2.26/img/table-icon.gif" alt="Table Icon" /></a><div class="icnblk_cntnt"><h4 id="niceng236er13.tab6"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab6/?report=objectonly" target="object" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13tab6">Table 6</a></h4><p class="float-caption no_bottom_margin">Health economic evidence profile: Self-management versus active control. </p></div></div></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.9"><h4>1.1.9. Economic model</h4><p>This area was not prioritised for new cost-effectiveness analysis.</p></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.10"><h4>1.1.10. Unit costs</h4><p>Self-management interventions require additional resource use compared to not providing such interventions. Studies included in the clinical review reported varied resource use (see <a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab1/?report=objectonly" target="object" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13tab1">Table 1</a> for details) due to:
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Variation in the delivery of therapy sessions: Studies reported either individual and group-based sessions or a combination of both. Group therapy will be lower cost per person. Some studies would also begin with face-to-face sessions before moving to telephone calls as part of the follow-up. Telephone calls will incur a lower cost per person than in-person appointments.</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Significant variation in the frequency and duration of the self-management intervention delivered, with sessions ranging from 20 minutes to 2.5 hours, occurring 1-7 days per week. In the included clinical studies, the interventions were delivered for between 5 weeks and 9 months and had follow-up periods from 5-12 months.</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Staff who delivered the intervention varied but it was primarily delivered by a member of the rehabilitation team or a healthcare professional trained to provide stroke-related care such as nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, and psychologists. One study (Lund 2012<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref19" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref19"><sup>19</sup></a>) had occupational therapists as well as trained volunteers to deliver a self-management course.</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Additional equipment required as part of the intervention, such as staff-training costs and workbook and website materials.</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Clinical setting: most studies were conducted in a community setting, however three Studies (Chang 2011<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref5" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref5"><sup>5</sup></a>, Chen 2018<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref6" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref6"><sup>6</sup></a> and Sit 2016<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref24" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref24"><sup>24</sup></a>) took place in an inpatient setting.</div></li></ul></p><p>Relevant staff unit costs are provided below to aid consideration of cost effectiveness.</p><div class="iconblock whole_rhythm clearfix ten_col table-wrap" id="figniceng236er13tab7"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab7/?report=objectonly" target="object" title="Table 7" class="img_link icnblk_img" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13tab7"><img class="small-thumb" src="/corehtml/pmc/css/bookshelf/2.26/img/table-icon.gif" alt="Table Icon" /></a><div class="icnblk_cntnt"><h4 id="niceng236er13.tab7"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab7/?report=objectonly" target="object" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13tab7">Table 7</a></h4><p class="float-caption no_bottom_margin">Unit costs of health care professionals who may be involved in delivering self-management interventions. </p></div></div></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.11"><h4>1.1.11. Evidence statements</h4><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.11.1"><h5>Effectiveness/Qualitative</h5><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.11.1.1"><h5>Economic</h5><ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>One cost-utility analysis found that in post-stroke adults, a self-management intervention (based on proactive coping action planning) was cost-effective (ICER of £8,284 per QALY) compared to an active control group receiving a stroke-specific education programme only. This analysis was assessed as partially applicable with potentially serious limitations.</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>One cost-utility analysis found that in post-stroke adults, the ‘New Start’ self-management intervention (for problem solving and building sustainable support networks) was cost-effective (ICER of £260,140 per QALY lost, lower costs but also fewer QALYs) compared to inactive control. This analysis was assessed as partially applicable with potentially serious limitations.</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>One cost-utility analysis found that in post-stroke adults, 1-2 sessions of the ‘Take Charge’ intervention (for goal setting and prioritisation) dominated inactive control, incurring lower costs (£1,173 less per participant) and greater QALYs (0.04 QALYs gained). However, QALY gains were not statistically significant between groups. This analysis was assessed as partially applicable with potentially serious limitations.</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>One cost-consequence analysis found that in post-stroke adults, a community-based self-management program incurred higher costs (£606 to £711 more patient) and clinically important benefits in terms of quality of life (mean difference of 3.2 and 3.3 reported for the SF-12 physical and mental subscales, respectively) compared to inactive control. This analysis was assessed as partially applicable with potentially serious limitations.</div></li></ul></div></div></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.12"><h4>1.1.12. The committee’s discussion and interpretation of the evidence</h4><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.12.1"><h5>1.1.12.1. The outcomes that matter most</h5><p>The committee included the following outcomes: Person/participant generic health-related quality of life, carer health-related quality of life, self-efficacy, activities of daily living, participation restrictions, psychological distress (depression), stroke-specific patient-reported outcome measures, health service usage (hospital readmissions, general practitioner attendance, emergency department visits), participant satisfaction, adverse events. Each of these outcomes were investigated at the end of the intervention and the end of the scheduled follow-up, as determined by the individual studies. All outcomes were considered equally important for decision making and have therefore all been rated as critical. Person/participant generic health-related quality of life outcomes were considered particularly important as a holistic measure of the impact on the person’s quality of living.</p><p>The committee chose to investigate these outcomes at <6 months and ≥6 months, as they considered that there could be a difference in the short term and long-term effects.</p><p>There was evidence available for the majority of outcomes. However, for the comparison between self-management and inactive control (usual care, waiting list) there was no available evidence for participant satisfaction or health service usage (emergency department visits and general practitioner attendance). For the comparison between self-management and active control (other intervention that was not self-management) there was no available data for carer generic health-related quality of life, activities of daily living, participation restrictions, participant satisfaction or health service usage (hospital readmissions).</p></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.12.2"><h5>1.1.12.2. The quality of the evidence</h5><p>Evidence was available for most outcomes when comparing self-management to inactive controls (usual care, waiting list). The quality of evidence ranged from high to very low, although the majority was of very low quality. Outcomes were most commonly downgraded for risk of bias and imprecision. The most common domains where risk of bias was identified were bias due to deviations from the intended interventions and bias due to missing outcome data. These biases were likely non-directional and were a result of the nature and duration of the studies included in the review, which was highlighted to the committee. Some degree of imprecision was seen in the majority of the outcomes. This was largely due to small sample sizes within analyses. One outcome was downgraded for indirectness due to the outcome not directly matching the protocol. This was due to the study in question reporting emergency department visits, which was accepted as an indirect measure of hospital readmissions. In the small number of analyses where inconsistency was seen, heterogeneity was not resolved by subgroup analyses. This resulted in the use of random effects analysis for this outcome and downgrading for inconsistency.</p></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.12.3"><h5>1.1.12.3. Benefits and harms</h5><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.12.3.1"><h5>1.1.12.3.1. Key uncertainties</h5><p>The content and duration of self-management interventions varied significantly between studies. The most variable component of the interventions was the number of contact sessions with a health professional or group, which ranged from a single session to daily contacts. In general, interventions providing weekly sessions that lasted between one and two hours were most common, although the large variability in interventions was highlighted as a significant issue in the interpretation of the evidence. Additionally, the components of the interventions were varied between studies, with the majority of studies using a mixture of methods including goal setting, education and workbook tasks.</p><p>The heterogeneity in the contents of the interventions limited the committee’s ability to come to conclusions on the evidence presented. The committee agreed that further research would be required to determine:
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>The required frequency of sessions to achieve a benefit to people after stroke.</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>The specific components of the interventions that make them successful.</div></li></ul></p><p>The committee acknowledged the evidence presented but agreed that there were additional benefits to self-management interventions that may not be captured by quantitative research (such as effects on motivation and interactions with rehabilitation). They acknowledged the value of considering qualitative experiences to gain a thorough understanding of the interventions.</p></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.12.3.2"><h5>1.1.12.3.2. Self-management compared to inactive control</h5><p>No outcomes were highlighted as preferentially important at the outset, but as the discussion of the evidence progressed there was a consensus that person generic health-related quality of life and hospital readmissions were of especially high importance. These were deemed to be of particular importance due to the typically depleted quality of life experienced in people after stroke and because of the serious burden that hospital admission places on the person and their carer.</p><p>A clinically important benefit with seen as a result of the self-management intervention in 5 outcomes measuring person/participant generic health-related quality of life. Three of these were at the end of intervention timepoint (SF-36 role emotional, SF-12 physical component, SF-12 mental component), and 2 were at the end of scheduled follow-up (EQ-5D, SF-12 physical component). In contrast, a clinically important benefit was seen with inactive control in four outcomes also measuring person/participant generic health-related quality of life. All four of these were measured at the end of intervention time point (EQ-5D, SF-36 physical component, SF-36 vitality, SF-36 general health). All the clinically important differences highlighted above came from outcomes reported in single trials where the outcomes were all very low quality.</p><p>A mixed effect was seen in self efficacy and stroke-specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, where 1 outcome showed a clinically important benefit while others showed no clinically important difference. The committee noted that the outcome where a clinically important benefit was seen appeared to do so due to the outcome from one study which appeared to be an outlier which significantly inflated the effect. Therefore, they expected that the effect would likely otherwise show no clinically important difference but would trend towards a beneficial effect. No clinically important difference was identified in carer generic health-related quality of life, activities of daily living, participation restrictions, psychological distress – depression, health service usage and adverse events. Outcomes for carer generic health-related quality of life showed a trend towards a benefit of self-management while outcomes for health service usage showed a trend towards a benefit of inactive control. However, these trends were not of a sufficient magnitude to indicate a clinically important difference. Outcomes for activities of daily living, participation restrictions, psychological distress – depression, and adverse events were inconsistent; outcomes did not show a consistent trend towards a benefit of self-management or a benefit of inactive control. This evidence was acknowledged by the committee, but the low or very low quality of evidence and inclusion of a small number of studies with a small number of participants limited the impact of the outcomes.</p><p>The committee discussed the size of the effect for the healthcare utilisation outcomes. The first outcome where the effect was unclear was days hospitalised. This referred to the number of days an individual would spend in hospital following initial discharge. At both the end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up timepoints the committee noted that there was a reduced number of days in hospital in the group of people involved in a self-management intervention. On considering this, the committee agreed that this was a potentially important finding. However, the evidence for this outcome was insufficient to draw conclusions from as it came from a single study which had a limited sample size and was of very low quality.</p><p>A similar discussion of the health service utilization (therapy hours) outcome was held. Here a potentially important effect was seen, but again this was from a single study of very low quality, limiting its use in the overall decision making process. Moreover, the benefit of self-management was debatable as more health service utilisation occurred in those who took part in the self-management programme. The committee noted that many of the selfmanagement interventions included an educational element that encouraged participants to utilise the available health services, making it unclear whether an effect was a benefit of the intervention (people accessing more health services as following the intervention) or a harm (whether people were needing to access more health services because their needs were not being met).</p><p>On balance of the presented evidence and the committees’ expert opinion, no recommendations were made. The vast majority of evidence indicated no clinically important difference between self-management and control treatments. Despite the lack of clinical evidence supporting self-management, it was agreed by the committee that selfmanagement plays a useful role in the lives of people after stroke. It was agreed that self-management is unlikely to cause harm and so use could continue due to its potential benefits. The committee agreed on the need for further quantitative research, comparing components of self-management interventions, to provide an evidence base for the widespread use of self-management. The need to consider qualitative evidence was also agreed by the committee to capture the benefits of self-management that are not seen through quantitative data.</p></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.12.3.3"><h5>1.1.12.3.3. Self-management compared to active control</h5><p>There were no clinically important benefits or harms for this comparison. Evidence was limited to three studies when comparing self-management to active controls (other form of rehabilitation deemed not to be self-management). All three studies reported stroke-specific patient reported outcome measures, however the use of subscales in these studies prevented the combination of results in a single analysis.</p><p>Evidence was reported for person/participant generic health-related quality of life, self efficacy, psychological distress, stroke-specific patient reported outcome measures, health service usage (hospital readmissions and general practitioner attendance) and adverse events. All outcomes were low/very low quality. The committee did not comment on any outcomes specifically and acknowledged that overall evidence was lacking in both quantity and quality in order to have a significant impact, relative to outcomes in the previous comparison, on decision making.</p><p>On balance of the presented evidence and the committees’ expert opinion, no recommendations were made. The vast majority of evidence indicated no clinically important difference between self-management and control treatments. Despite the lack of clinical evidence supporting self-management, it was agreed by the committee that selfmanagement plays an important role in the lives of people after stroke. It was agreed that self-management is unlikely to cause harm and so use could continue due to its potential benefits. The committee agreed on the need for further quantitative research, comparing components of self-management interventions, to provide an evidence base for the widespread use of self-management. The need to consider qualitative evidence was also agreed by the committee to capture the benefits of self-management that are not seen through quantitative data.</p></div></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.12.4"><h5>1.1.12.4. Cost effectiveness and resource use</h5><p>Four studies met the inclusion criteria for this review, with one study comparing a self-management intervention to an active control intervention<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref35" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref35"><sup>35</sup></a>, while the remaining three studies compared self-management to an inactive control intervention.<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref8" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref8"><sup>8</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16"><sup>16</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref32" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref32"><sup>32</sup></a></p><p>The study containing an active control intervention was also included as part of the community participation review for this guideline.<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16"><sup>16</sup></a><sup>,</sup>
|
|
<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref35" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref35"><sup>35</sup></a> This was a within-trial cost-utility analysis that compared a self-management intervention (SMI) (based on proactive coping action planning) to a stroke-specific education only programme. The analysis adopted a Dutch societal perspective for the base case; however, it was possible to report the results excluding non-health and social care costs to reflect an NHS and PSS perspective. Based on the revised calculations the incremental cost was estimated to be £414, much of which is attributable to the intervention and home costs. Despite this, tools and home adjustment costs were lower in the self-management group compared to the active control group. Using the scenario that applied the UK tariff provided a QALY gain of 0.05 and combined with the incremental cost this produced a cost-effectiveness ratio of £8,284 per QALY gained. This study was assessed as partially applicable due to the use of 2012 to 2014 Dutch resource use and 2012-unit costs. Potentially serious limitations were identified as the within-trial analysis of costs and outcomes meant that the study results were representative of only one study included in the review. Sensitivity analyses were performed for the Dutch societal perspective and not for the results generated to suit the NICE reference case, meaning that it was not possible for the committee to ascertain the probability that the self-management intervention would remain cost-effective for the NICE £20,000 threshold. The committee was informed that a sensitivity analysis using a healthcare perspective was conducted, however, this excluded costs that the NHS would typically cover.</p><p>The first study to include an inactive group was a within-trial cost-consequence analysis of a feasibility-cluster RCT<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16"><sup>16</sup></a> that compared a self-management programme (revolving around principles such as goal setting, problem solving and self-discovery) to standard community stroke rehabilitation (CSR), and this included access to physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and speech and language therapy (if required). The study was conducted across four UK sites, with two sites for each comparator. The total mean cost per participant for both interventions was not reported as the study reported the total costs for each cluster. Using a weighted average of the costs for each comparator across the two sites provided estimates of the incremental cost, which were then presented to the committee. This found the additional cost of providing the self-management intervention to range between £606 to £711 pounds, depending on the assumed ratio face-to-face to non-face-face time. Costs also differed across sites due to other stroke-related health and social resource use, as 1 site used 20 hours of therapy on average while the other had 50 therapy hours. The incremental effects are included as per the clinical review, which found clinically important benefits in terms of quality of life for the self-management intervention compared to inactive control (mean difference of 3.2 and 3.3 reported for the SF-12 physical and mental subscales, respectively).</p><p>A cost-effectiveness ratio could not be provided as quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were not calculated. For this reason, alongside the use of 2013 resource use and 2012-unit costs which may not reflect current UK NHS context, the committee agreed with the assessment that this study was partially applicable to this review. The study was also found to have potentially serious limitations as it was a within-trial analysis and so only reflects this study. Furthermore, the analysis was based on a feasibility trial that was not designed to evaluate intervention effects with certainty, and the 12-week follow-up period prevented the estimation of the duration of the long-term treatment effect (or changes in healthcare resource use between groups). In addition, no sensitivity analyses were conducted for the results. The use of different assumptions to estimate patient-related non-face-to-face time was another limiting factor against the certainty of the incremental costs.</p><p>The second study to include an inactive control group was a within-trial cost-utility analysis of a study included in the clinical review.<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref32" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref32"><sup>32</sup></a> The analysis compared 1-2 sessions of the ‘Take Charge’ intervention, which focused on goal setting and prioritisation, to usual care (including inpatient care or rehabilitation, early supported discharge or community-based rehabilitation). Costs were recalculated to reflect an NHS and PSS perspective to be consistent with NICE reference case, as the reported analysis used a societal perspective for the base case that included non-healthcare costs (short-term loss of income and informal care costs). The results suggested that the ‘Take Charge’ intervention dominated usual care (£1,173 saving and 0.04 QALY gain) however it was noted that QALY gains were not statistically significant between groups. The study did report more improvements for activities of daily living, with a mean difference of 0.5 on the Barthel Index. The analysis was assessed as partially applicable as the New Zealand version of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire was used to estimate QALYs when NICE reference case specifies that EQ-5D-3L is preferred. New Zealand 2018-unit costs and 2017 resource use estimates was also used which may not reflect the current UK NHS context. Potentially serious limitations were found, including the use of a single trial which meant that the results only reflect this study and not the wider evidence base identified in the clinical review. In addition, probabilistic analysis and sensitivity analyses were performed for the societal perspective only and so are not available for results presented here, and one author declared a potential conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</p><p>The third study that included an inactive control group was a within-trial cost-utility analysis of a cluster feasibility RCT included in the clinical review.<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref8" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref8"><sup>8</sup></a> The analysis compared the ‘New Start’ self-management intervention (for problem solving and building sustainable support networks) to usual care. Costs were presented to reflect an NHS and PSS perspective to be consistent with NICE reference case, as the reported analysis uses societal perspective for the base case that included non-healthcare costs (such as patient and carer out-of-pocket expenses and time off work). The results showed that the ‘New Start’ intervention was cost-effective (ICER of £260,140 per QALY lost) compared to inactive control. When an intervention is less costly and less effective, the ICER is presented as the cost per QALY loss, where an ICER of greater than £20,000 per QALY lost is considered cost effective. Of note, a Markov model was also conducted from a societal perspective to analyse future costs and benefits beyond the trial time horizon. Over a lifetime horizon, this analysis found that New Start was dominated by usual care (more costly and less effective). This analysis was uncertain and driven by small differences in total costs and total QALYs. The analysis was found to be partially applicable as EQ-5D-5L was used to estimate QALYs when NICE reference case specifies that EQ-5D-3L is preferred. Potentially serious limitations that were noted include that the study was a within-trial analysis of a single RCT, which meant that the results only reflected this study and not the wider evidence base identified in the clinical review. Furthermore, the primary purpose of the analysis was to assess the feasibility of conducting an economic evaluation as part of a definitive trial and was therefore not designed to evaluate intervention effects with certainty. Finally, probabilistic analysis and sensitivity analyses were only available from a societal perspective.</p><p>In addition to these studies, relevant unit costs were presented to the committee to aid consideration of cost effectiveness of self-management interventions, which require additional resource use compared to not providing such interventions, related to staff time and equipment. Studies included in the clinical review reported varied resource use, owing to a few factors such as the delivery of therapy sessions (either individual and group-based); the frequency and duration of therapy delivered (with sessions ranging from 20 minutes to 2.5 hours, occurring 1 to 5 days per week for between 5 weeks and 9 months); additional staff training costs or equipment (e.g. workbook and website materials.); clinical setting (most reported a community setting, however three took place in an inpatient setting) and staff delivering the intervention, which was usually a rehabilitation team member or a healthcare professional trained to provide stroke-related care but one study also included volunteers (which would generate less resource use). The committee felt uncertain towards the potential resource impact of a recommendation considering the variation in resource use requirements from the clinical studies, alongside uncertainty towards the study results of the economic evidence, as each study was a single-trial analysis that did not use probability sensitivity analyses to test the robustness of the study conclusions from a healthcare perspective.</p><p>The vast majority of clinical evidence indicated no clinically important difference between self-management and control treatments. However, the committee consensus was that their experiences with self-management interventions were not reflected in the included studies. There was agreement for the need of further quantitative research that could capture the benefits of self-management interventions currently observed in clinical practice. Additional research was also regarded as important for determining the frequency and specific components of such interventions required to achieve benefits for people after stroke, given the heterogeneous nature of the clinical evidence. For this reason, alongside the uncertainty towards the economic evidence the committee decided to not make a recommendation for self-management interventions. A research recommendation has been made.</p></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.12.5"><h5>1.1.12.5. Other factors the committee took into account</h5><p>The committee discussed how self-management interventions are delivered in the United Kingdom. It was agreed that these may be delivered by NHS services, by charity organisations or as collaborations between both. The committee noted that access to these interventions was inconsistent across the country. They agreed that if services were found to be beneficial in the future that they should be available across the country, rather than limited to specific regions.</p><p>In the discussion of the health service usage (hospital readmissions) outcome for self-management compared to inactive control, the committee noted that the outcome was solely based on results from a study carried out in the USA. Given the differences between healthcare services in the UK and the USA, this outcome was considered to have limitations in its applicability to the NHS.</p></div></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.13"><h4>1.1.13. Recommendations supported by this evidence review</h4><p>This evidence supports the research recommendation on self-management in <a href="#niceng236er13.appk">Appendix K</a>.</p></div><div id="niceng236er13.s1.1.rl.r1"><h4>1.1.14. References</h4><dl class="temp-labeled-list"><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>1.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref1">Battersby
|
|
M, Hoffmann
|
|
S, Cadilhac
|
|
D, Osborne
|
|
R, Lalor
|
|
E, Lindley
|
|
R. ‘Getting your life back on track after stroke’: a Phase II multi-centered, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial of the Stroke Self-Management Program vs. the Stanford Chronic Condition Self-Management Program or standard care in stroke survivors. International Journal of Stroke. 2009; 4(2):137–144
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19383056" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 19383056</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>2.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref2">Bishop
|
|
D, Miller
|
|
I, Weiner
|
|
D, Guilmette
|
|
T, Mukand
|
|
J, Feldmann
|
|
E
|
|
et al. Family Intervention: telephone Tracking (FITT): a pilot stroke outcome study. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation. 2014; 21(Suppl 1):S63–74
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24722045" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 24722045</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>3.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref3">Cadilhac
|
|
D, Kilkenny
|
|
M, Hoffmann
|
|
S, Osborne
|
|
R, Lindley
|
|
R, Lalor
|
|
E
|
|
et al. Developing a self management program for stroke: results of a phase II multi centred, single blind RCT. International Journal of Stroke. 2010; 5(Suppl 2):343</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>4.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref4">Cadilhac
|
|
DA, Hoffmann
|
|
S, Kilkenny
|
|
M, Lindley
|
|
R, Lalor
|
|
E, Osborne
|
|
RH
|
|
et al. A phase II multicentered, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial of the stroke selfmanagement program. Stroke; a journal of cerebral circulation. 2011; 42(6):1673–1679 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21493910" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 21493910</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>5.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref5">Chang
|
|
K, Zhang
|
|
H, Xia
|
|
Y, Chen
|
|
C. Testing the effectiveness of knowledge and behavior therapy in patients of hemiplegic stroke. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation. 2011; 18(5):525–535
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22082702" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 22082702</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>6.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref6">Chen
|
|
L, Chen
|
|
Y, Chen
|
|
X, Shen
|
|
X, Wang
|
|
Q, Sun
|
|
C. Longitudinal Study of Effectiveness of a Patient-Centered Self-Management Empowerment Intervention During Predischarge Planning on Stroke Survivors. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing. 2018; 15(3):197–205
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29878691" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 29878691</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>7.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref7">Evans-Hudnall
|
|
GL, Stanley
|
|
MA, Clark
|
|
AN, Bush
|
|
AL, Resnicow
|
|
K, Liu
|
|
Y
|
|
et al. Improving secondary stroke self-care among underserved ethnic minority individuals: a randomized clinical trial of a pilot intervention. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 2014; 37(2):196–204
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23225167" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 23225167</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>8.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref8">Forster
|
|
A, Ozer
|
|
S, Crocker
|
|
TF, House
|
|
A, Hewison
|
|
J, Roberts
|
|
E
|
|
et al. Longer-term health and social care strategies for stroke survivors and their carers: the LoTS2Care research programme including cluster feasibility RCT. Southampton (UK). 2021. Available from: <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33819000" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=uri">https://www<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​.ncbi.nlm<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​.nih.gov/pubmed/33819000</a> [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33819000" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 33819000</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>9.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref9">Frank
|
|
G, Johnston
|
|
M, Morrison
|
|
V, Pollard
|
|
B, MacWalter
|
|
R. Perceived control and recovery from functional limitations: preliminary evaluation of a workbook-based intervention for discharged stroke patients. British Journal of Health Psychology. 2000; 5(4):413–420</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>10.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref10">Fryer
|
|
CE, Luker
|
|
JA, McDonnell
|
|
MN, Hillier
|
|
SL. Self-Management Programs for Quality of Life in People With Stroke. Stroke. 2016; 47(12):e266–e267
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27895302" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 27895302</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>11.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref11">Fu
|
|
V, Weatherall
|
|
M, McPherson
|
|
K, Taylor
|
|
W, McRae
|
|
A, Thomson
|
|
T
|
|
et al. Taking Charge after Stroke: A randomized controlled trial of a person-centered, self-directed rehabilitation intervention. International Journal of Stroke. 2020; 15(9):954–964
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC7739137/" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC7739137</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32293236" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 32293236</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>12.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref12">Guidetti
|
|
S, Ytterberg
|
|
C. A randomised controlled trial of a client-centred self-care intervention after stroke: a longitudinal pilot study. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2011; 33(6):494–503
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20597629" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 20597629</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>13.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref13">Harwood
|
|
M, Weatherall
|
|
M, Talemaitoga
|
|
A, Barber
|
|
PA, Gommans
|
|
J, Taylor
|
|
W
|
|
et al. Taking charge after stroke: promoting self-directed rehabilitation to improve quality of life-a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2012; 26(6):493–501
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22087047" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 22087047</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>14.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref14">Hoffmann
|
|
T, Ownsworth
|
|
T, Eames
|
|
S, Shum
|
|
D. Evaluation of brief interventions for managing depression and anxiety symptoms during early discharge period after stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation. 2015; 22(2):116–126
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25936543" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 25936543</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>15.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref15">Johnston
|
|
M, Bonetti
|
|
D, Joice
|
|
S, Pollard
|
|
B, Morrison
|
|
V, Francis
|
|
JJ
|
|
et al. Recovery from disability after stroke as a target for a behavioural intervention: results of a randomized controlled trial. Disability and Rehabilitation. 2007; 29(14):1117–1127
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17612998" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 17612998</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>16.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16">Jones
|
|
F, Gage
|
|
H, Drummond
|
|
A, Bhalla
|
|
A, Grant
|
|
R, Lennon
|
|
S
|
|
et al. Feasibility study of an integrated stroke self-management programme: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2016; 6(1):e008900 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC4716164/" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC4716164</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26739723" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 26739723</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>17.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref17">Jones
|
|
K, Burns
|
|
A. Unit costs of health and social care
|
|
2021. Canterbury. Personal Social Services Research Unit University of Kent, 2021. Available from: <a href="https://www.pssru.ac.uk/project-pages/unit-costs/unit-costs-of-health-and-social-care-2021/" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=uri">https://www<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​.pssru.ac<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​.uk/project-pages/unit-costs<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​/unit-costs-of-health-and-social-care-2021/</a></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>18.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref18">Kalav
|
|
S, Bektas
|
|
H, Unal
|
|
A. Effects of Chronic Care Model-based interventions on self-management, quality of life and patient satisfaction in patients with ischemic stroke: A single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Japan Journal of Nursing Science: JJNS. 2021:e12441 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34264000" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 34264000</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>19.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref19">Kendall
|
|
E, Catalano
|
|
T, Kuipers
|
|
P, Posner
|
|
N, Buys
|
|
N, Charker
|
|
J. Recovery following stroke: the role of self-management education. Social science & medicine (1982). 2007; 64(3):735–746 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17079060" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 17079060</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>20.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref20">Kessler
|
|
D, Egan
|
|
M, Dubouloz
|
|
CJ, McEwen
|
|
S, Graham
|
|
FP. Occupational Performance Coaching for Stroke Survivors: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. American Journal of Occupational Therapy. 2017; 71(3):7103190020p7103190021-7103190020p7103190027 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28422628" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 28422628</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>21.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref21">Kim
|
|
JI, Lee
|
|
S, Kim
|
|
JH. Effects of a web-based stroke education program on recurrence prevention behaviors among stroke patients: a pilot study. Health Education Research. 2013; 28(3):488–501
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23515115" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 23515115</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>22.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref22">Li
|
|
Y, Zhang
|
|
S, Song
|
|
J, Tuo
|
|
M, Sun
|
|
C, Yang
|
|
F. Effects of self-management intervention programs based on the health belief model and planned behavior theory on self-management behavior and quality of life in middle-aged stroke patients. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2021; 2021:8911143 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC8545554/" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC8545554</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34707678" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 34707678</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>23.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref23">Lund
|
|
A, Michelet
|
|
M, Sandvik
|
|
L, Wyller
|
|
T, Sveen
|
|
U. A lifestyle intervention as supplement to a physical activity programme in rehabilitation after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2012; 26(6):502–512
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22169830" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 22169830</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>24.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref24">Maulet
|
|
T, Pouplin
|
|
S, Bensmail
|
|
D, Zory
|
|
R, Roche
|
|
N, Bonnyaud
|
|
C. Self-rehabilitation combined with botulinum toxin to improve arm function in people with chronic stroke. A randomized controlled trial. Annals of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine. 2021; 64(4):101450
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33152520" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 33152520</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>25.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref25">McKenna
|
|
S, Jones
|
|
F, Glenfield
|
|
P, Lennon
|
|
S. Bridges self-management program for people with stroke in the community: a feasibility randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Stroke. 2015; 10(5):697–704
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24256085" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 24256085</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>26.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref26">Minshall
|
|
C, Castle
|
|
DJ, Thompson
|
|
DR, Pascoe
|
|
M, Cameron
|
|
J, McCabe
|
|
M
|
|
et al. A psychosocial intervention for stroke survivors and carers: 12-month outcomes of a randomized controlled trial. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation. 2020; 27(8):563–576
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32191569" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 32191569</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>27.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref27">National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Chronic pain (primary and secondary) in over 16s: assessment of all chronic pain and management of chronic primary pain [NG193]. London. 2021. Available from: <a href="https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng193" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=uri">https://www<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng193</a> [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33939353" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 33939353</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>28.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref28">National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Developing NICE guidelines: the manual [updated January
|
|
2022]. London. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2014. Available from: <a href="https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=uri">https://www<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​.nice.org.uk/process/pmg20</a></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>29.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref29">Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Purchasing power parities (PPP). 2012. Available from: <a href="http://www.oecd.org/std/ppp" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=uri">http://www<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​.oecd.org/std/ppp</a> Last accessed: 01/05/2023.</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>30.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref30">Sabariego
|
|
C, Barrera
|
|
AE, Neubert
|
|
S, Stier-Jarmer
|
|
M, Bostan
|
|
C, Cieza
|
|
A. Evaluation of an ICF-based patient education programme for stroke patients: a randomized, single-blinded, controlled, multicentre trial of the effects on self-efficacy, life satisfaction and functioning. British Journal of Health Psychology. 2013; 18(4):707–728
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23252844" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 23252844</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>31.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref31">Sit
|
|
JW, Chair
|
|
SY, Choi
|
|
KC, Chan
|
|
CW, Lee
|
|
DT, Chan
|
|
AW
|
|
et al. Do empowered stroke patients perform better at self-management and functional recovery after a stroke? A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Interventions in Aging. 2016; 11:1441–1450
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC5072569/" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC5072569</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27789938" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 27789938</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>32.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref32">Te Ao
|
|
B, Harwood
|
|
M, Fu
|
|
V, Weatherall
|
|
M, McPherson
|
|
K, Taylor
|
|
WJ
|
|
et al. Economic analysis of the ‘Take Charge’ intervention for people following stroke: Results from a randomised trial. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2021:2692155211040727 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34414801" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 34414801</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>33.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref33">Tielemans
|
|
NS, Schepers
|
|
VP, Visser-Meily
|
|
JM, van Haastregt
|
|
JC, van Veen
|
|
WJ, van Stralen
|
|
HE. Process evaluation of the Restore4stroke Self-Management intervention ?Plan Ahead!?: a stroke-specific self-management intervention. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2016; 30(12):1175–1185
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC5131629/" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC5131629</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26658332" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 26658332</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>34.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref34">Tielemans
|
|
NS, Visser-Meily
|
|
JM, Schepers
|
|
VP, van de Passier
|
|
PE, Port
|
|
IG, Vloothuis
|
|
JD
|
|
et al. Effectiveness of the Restore4Stroke self-management intervention “Plan ahead!”: a randomized controlled trial in stroke patients and partners. Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine. 2015; 47(10):901–909
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26424327" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 26424327</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>35.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref35">van Mastrigt
|
|
G, van Eeden
|
|
M, van Heugten
|
|
CM, Tielemans
|
|
N, Schepers
|
|
VPM, Evers
|
|
S. A trial-based economic evaluation of the Restore4Stroke self-management intervention compared to an education-based intervention for stroke patients and their partners. BMC Health Services Research. 2020; 20(1):294
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC7140323/" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC7140323</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32268896" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 32268896</span></a>]</div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>36.</dt><dd><div class="bk_ref" id="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref36">Zwaap
|
|
J, Knies
|
|
S, Staal
|
|
P, Van der Meijden
|
|
C, Van der Heiden
|
|
L. Cost effectiveness in practice [Kosteneffectiviteit in de praktijk]. 2015. Available from: <a href="https://www-zorginstituutnederland-nl.translate.goog/publicaties/rapport/2015/06/26/kosteneffectiviteit-in-de-praktijk?_x_tr_sl=nl&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc" ref="pagearea=cite-ref&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=uri">https:<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​//www-zorginstituutnederland-nl<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​.translate<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​.goog/publicaties<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​/rapport/2015/06<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​/26/kosteneffectiviteit-in-de-praktijk?<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​_x_tr_sl<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​=nl&_x_tr_tl<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​=en&_x_tr_hl<wbr style="display:inline-block"></wbr>​=en&_x_tr_pto=sc</a></div></dd></dl></dl></div></div></div><div id="appendixesappgroup1"><h2 id="_appendixesappgroup1_">Appendices</h2><div id="niceng236er13.appa"><h3>Appendix A. Review protocols</h3><p id="niceng236er13.appa.et1"><a href="/books/NBK602818/bin/niceng236er13-appa-et1.pdf" class="bk_dwnld_icn bk_dwnld_pdf">Review protocol for the clinical and cost effectiveness of self-care management and/or supported self-care management compared with usual rehabilitation</a><span class="small"> (PDF, 254K)</span></p><p id="niceng236er13.appa.et2"><a href="/books/NBK602818/bin/niceng236er13-appa-et2.pdf" class="bk_dwnld_icn bk_dwnld_pdf">Health economic review protocol</a><span class="small"> (PDF, 185K)</span></p></div><div id="niceng236er13.appb"><h3>Appendix B. Literature search strategies</h3><p id="niceng236er13.appb.et1"><a href="/books/NBK602818/bin/niceng236er13-appb-et1.pdf" class="bk_dwnld_icn bk_dwnld_pdf">B.1. Clinical search literature search strategy</a><span class="small"> (PDF, 295K)</span></p><p id="niceng236er13.appb.et2"><a href="/books/NBK602818/bin/niceng236er13-appb-et2.pdf" class="bk_dwnld_icn bk_dwnld_pdf">B.2. Health Economics literature search strategy</a><span class="small"> (PDF, 220K)</span></p></div><div id="niceng236er13.appc"><h3>Appendix C. Effectiveness evidence study selection</h3><p id="niceng236er13.appc.et1"><a href="/books/NBK602818/bin/niceng236er13-appc-et1.pdf" class="bk_dwnld_icn bk_dwnld_pdf">Figure 1. Flow chart of clinical study selection for the review of self-management for people after a stroke</a><span class="small"> (PDF, 246K)</span></p></div><div id="niceng236er13.appd"><h3>Appendix D. Effectiveness evidence</h3><p id="niceng236er13.appd.et1"><a href="/books/NBK602818/bin/niceng236er13-appd-et1.pdf" class="bk_dwnld_icn bk_dwnld_pdf">Download PDF</a><span class="small"> (989K)</span></p></div><div id="niceng236er13.appe"><h3>Appendix E. Forest plots</h3><p id="niceng236er13.appe.et1"><a href="/books/NBK602818/bin/niceng236er13-appe-et1.pdf" class="bk_dwnld_icn bk_dwnld_pdf">E.1. Self-management compared to inactive control</a><span class="small"> (PDF, 293K)</span></p><p id="niceng236er13.appe.et2"><a href="/books/NBK602818/bin/niceng236er13-appe-et2.pdf" class="bk_dwnld_icn bk_dwnld_pdf">E.2. Self-management compared to active control</a><span class="small"> (PDF, 176K)</span></p></div><div id="niceng236er13.appf"><h3>Appendix F. GRADE tables</h3><p id="niceng236er13.appf.et1"><a href="/books/NBK602818/bin/niceng236er13-appf-et1.pdf" class="bk_dwnld_icn bk_dwnld_pdf">Download PDF</a><span class="small"> (458K)</span></p></div><div id="niceng236er13.appg"><h3>Appendix G. Economic evidence study selection</h3><p id="niceng236er13.appg.et1"><a href="/books/NBK602818/bin/niceng236er13-appg-et1.pdf" class="bk_dwnld_icn bk_dwnld_pdf">Figure 1. Flow chart of health economic study selection for the guideline</a><span class="small"> (PDF, 197K)</span></p></div><div id="niceng236er13.apph"><h3>Appendix H. Economic evidence tables</h3><p id="niceng236er13.apph.et1"><a href="/books/NBK602818/bin/niceng236er13-apph-et1.pdf" class="bk_dwnld_icn bk_dwnld_pdf">H.1. Self-management versus inactive control</a><span class="small"> (PDF, 235K)</span></p><p id="niceng236er13.apph.et2"><a href="/books/NBK602818/bin/niceng236er13-apph-et2.pdf" class="bk_dwnld_icn bk_dwnld_pdf">H.2. Self-management versus active control</a><span class="small"> (PDF, 193K)</span></p></div><div id="niceng236er13.appi"><h3>Appendix I. Health economic model</h3><p>Modelling was not prioritised for this question.</p></div><div id="niceng236er13.appj"><h3>Appendix J. Excluded studies</h3><div id="niceng236er13.appj.s1"><h4>Clinical studies</h4><div class="iconblock whole_rhythm clearfix ten_col table-wrap" id="figniceng236er13appjtab1"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.appj.tab1/?report=objectonly" target="object" title="Table 12" class="img_link icnblk_img" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13appjtab1"><img class="small-thumb" src="/corehtml/pmc/css/bookshelf/2.26/img/table-icon.gif" alt="Table Icon" /></a><div class="icnblk_cntnt"><h4 id="niceng236er13.appj.tab1"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.appj.tab1/?report=objectonly" target="object" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13appjtab1">Table 12</a></h4><p class="float-caption no_bottom_margin">Studies excluded from the clinical review. </p></div></div></div><div id="niceng236er13.appj.s2"><h4>Health Economic studies</h4><p>Published health economic studies that met the inclusion criteria (relevant population, comparators, economic study design, published 2006 or later and not from non-OECD country or USA) but that were excluded following appraisal of applicability and methodological quality are listed below. See the health economic protocol for more details.</p><div class="iconblock whole_rhythm clearfix ten_col table-wrap" id="figniceng236er13appjtab2"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.appj.tab2/?report=objectonly" target="object" title="Table 13" class="img_link icnblk_img" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13appjtab2"><img class="small-thumb" src="/corehtml/pmc/css/bookshelf/2.26/img/table-icon.gif" alt="Table Icon" /></a><div class="icnblk_cntnt"><h4 id="niceng236er13.appj.tab2"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.appj.tab2/?report=objectonly" target="object" rid-ob="figobniceng236er13appjtab2">Table 13</a></h4><p class="float-caption no_bottom_margin">Studies excluded from the health economic review. </p></div></div></div></div><div id="niceng236er13.appk"><h3>Appendix K. Research recommendations – full details</h3><p id="niceng236er13.appk.et1"><a href="/books/NBK602818/bin/niceng236er13-appk-et1.pdf" class="bk_dwnld_icn bk_dwnld_pdf">K.1. Research recommendation</a><span class="small"> (PDF, 156K)</span></p></div></div></div><div class="fm-sec"><div><p>Final</p></div><div><p>A research recommendation was made for this review</p><p>These evidence reviews were developed by NICE</p></div><div><p><b>Disclaimer</b>: The recommendations in this guideline represent the view of NICE, arrived at after careful consideration of the evidence available. When exercising their judgement, professionals are expected to take this guideline fully into account, alongside the individual needs, preferences and values of their patients or service users. The recommendations in this guideline are not mandatory and the guideline does not override the responsibility of healthcare professionals to make decisions appropriate to the circumstances of the individual patient, in consultation with the patient and/or their carer or guardian.</p><p>Local commissioners and/or providers have a responsibility to enable the guideline to be applied when individual health professionals and their patients or service users wish to use it. They should do so in the context of local and national priorities for funding and developing services, and in light of their duties to have due regard to the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and to reduce health inequalities. Nothing in this guideline should be interpreted in a way that would be inconsistent with compliance with those duties.</p><p>NICE guidelines cover health and care in England. Decisions on how they apply in other UK countries are made by ministers in the <a href="http://wales.gov.uk/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=uri">Welsh Government</a>, <a href="http://www.scotland.gov.uk/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=uri">Scottish Government</a>, and <a href="http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=external&targetcat=link&targettype=uri">Northern Ireland Executive</a>. All NICE guidance is subject to regular review and may be updated or withdrawn.</p></div><div class="half_rhythm"><a href="/books/about/copyright/">Copyright</a> © NICE 2023.</div><div class="small"><span class="label">Bookshelf ID: NBK602818</span><span class="label">PMID: <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38635800" title="PubMed record of this title" ref="pagearea=meta&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">38635800</a></span></div></div><div class="small-screen-prev"></div><div class="small-screen-next"></div></article><article data-type="table-wrap" id="figobniceng236er13tab1"><div id="niceng236er13.tab1" class="table"><h3><span class="label">Table 1</span><span class="title">PICO characteristics of review question</span></h3><p class="large-table-link" style="display:none"><span class="right"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab1/?report=objectonly" target="object">View in own window</a></span></p><div class="large_tbl" id="__niceng236er13.tab1_lrgtbl__"><table><tbody><tr><th id="hd_b_niceng236er13.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Population</th><td headers="hd_b_niceng236er13.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Inclusion:
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Adults (age ≥16 years) who have had a first or recurrent stroke (including people after subarachnoid haemorrhage)</div></li></ul>
|
|
Exclusion:
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Children (age <16 years)</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>People who had a transient ischaemic attack</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><th id="hd_b_niceng236er13.tab1_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Intervention</th><td headers="hd_b_niceng236er13.tab1_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;"><p>Self management interventions (including interventions specific to people after stroke and generic interventions)
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Could be delivered face-to-face, postal, or online</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>The intervention must be aiming at empowering the stroke survivor to, at least in part, manage the following areas…
|
|
<ul class="circle"><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Problem-solving</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Goal-setting</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Decision-making</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Self monitoring</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Coping with the condition</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>An alternative method designed to facilitate behaviour change and improvements in physical and psychological functioning</div></li></ul></div></li></ul></p>
|
|
<p>Including interventions provided by health professionals or lay leaders, or a combination of both</p></td></tr><tr><th id="hd_b_niceng236er13.tab1_1_1_3_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Comparisons</th><td headers="hd_b_niceng236er13.tab1_1_1_3_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Usual care:
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Inactive control intervention (for example: usual care, waiting list control)</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Active control intervention (for example: information only, alternative intervention that was not considered self management)</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><th id="hd_b_niceng236er13.tab1_1_1_4_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Outcomes</th><td headers="hd_b_niceng236er13.tab1_1_1_4_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;"><p>All outcomes are considered equally important for decision making and therefore have all been rated as critical:</p>
|
|
<p>At the following time periods:
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>End of intervention</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>End of scheduled follow-up</div></li></ul></p>
|
|
<p>Where a time point for an outcome is the end of scheduled follow-up but this is also the first-scheduled follow-up, the outcome will be classified as the end of scheduled follow-up only.</p>
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Person/participant generic health-related quality of life (continuous outcomes will be prioritised [validated measures])</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Carer generic health-related quality of life (continuous outcomes will be prioritised [validated measures]))</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Self efficacy (continuous outcomes will be prioritised)</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Activities of daily living (continuous outcomes will be prioritised)</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Participation restrictions (including social, vocational and recreational roles, such as measured by the Life Habits instrument: LIFE-H)</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Psychological distress (continuous outcomes will be prioritised)
|
|
<ul class="circle"><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Depression (if people have communication difficulties, measures specific to this difficulty will be prioritised, for example for depression: depression intensity scale circles, stroke aphasic depression questionnaire, signs of depression scale, aphasic depression rating scale)</div></li></ul></div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Stroke-specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (continuous outcomes will be prioritised)</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Health service usage
|
|
<ul class="circle"><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Hospital readmissions</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>General practitioner attendance</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Emergency department visits</div></li></ul></div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Participant satisfaction</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Adverse events (type and frequency)</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><th id="hd_b_niceng236er13.tab1_1_1_5_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Study design</th><td headers="hd_b_niceng236er13.tab1_1_1_5_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and randomised controlled trials (randomised at the individual participant level or via clusters with appropriate methods)</td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></article><article data-type="table-wrap" id="figobniceng236er13tab2"><div id="niceng236er13.tab2" class="table"><h3><span class="label">Table 2</span><span class="title">Summary of studies included in the evidence review</span></h3><p class="large-table-link" style="display:none"><span class="right"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab2/?report=objectonly" target="object">View in own window</a></span></p><div class="large_tbl" id="__niceng236er13.tab2_lrgtbl__"><table><thead><tr><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Study</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Intervention and comparison</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Population</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Outcomes</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Comments</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Bishop 2014<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref2" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref2"><sup>2</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=23)</p>
|
|
<p>Family Intervention: Telephone Tracking model, consisting of psychoeducation and telephone follow-up delivered to stroke survivors and their caregivers.</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: weekly for 6 weeks, biweekly for the following 2 months, and monthly for the final 2 months (13 calls per patient)</p>
|
|
<p>Person supporting the intervention: clinically experienced staff (family therapy or stroke)</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: general</p>
|
|
<p>Mechanism of intervention: problem solving</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=26)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> Standard medical follow-up</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 70.1 (11.6) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 49</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not reported</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): Not reported</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Psychological distress – depression at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow up</p>
|
|
<p>Activities of daily living at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>Health service usage (days hospitalised, therapy hours, physician visits) at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>End of intervention = 3 months</p>
|
|
<p>End of scheduled follow-up = 6 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Community, delivered via telephone contact in the United States of America.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: National Institute for Mental Health grant.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Cadilhac 2011<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref4" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref4"><sup>4</sup></a></p>
|
|
<p>Subsidiary studies:</p>
|
|
<p>Battersby 2009<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref1" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref1"><sup>1</sup></a></p>
|
|
<p>Cadilhac 2010<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref3" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref3"><sup>3</sup></a></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=95)</p>
|
|
<p>Combined generic Stanford Chronic Condition Self-management Programme and Stroke Self-management Programme. Both programmes aimed to improve patient’s ability to cope with their stroke through education, physical and cognitive therapy.</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: weekly 2.5-hour sessions for 6 weeks (Stanford Programme) or 8 weeks (Stroke Programme) Person supporting the intervention: co-facilitated by health professionals and trained peer leaders</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: general Mechanism of intervention: problem solving</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=48)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> Usual care</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 69 (11.7) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 143</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not reported Time period since stroke (frequency ≥12 months [%]): Intervention: 39 (41)</p>
|
|
<p>Control: 26 (70)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Health service usage (rehospitalisation) at end of scheduled follow-up Adverse effects at end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>End of scheduled follow-up = 8 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Community, delivered face-to-face in Australia.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: grant from the J.O and J.R Wicking Trust and in-kind support from the National Stroke Foundation.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Chang 2011<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref5" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref5"><sup>5</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=39)</p>
|
|
<p>Psychological intervention split into a knowledge and behavioural training component. Behavioural training was split into belief changes, forgiveness training and anger management.</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: weekly 1–2-hour sessions for 1-month</p>
|
|
<p>Person supporting the intervention: psychology graduate</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: mood</p>
|
|
<p>Mechanism of intervention: coping with the condition</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=38)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> Regular therapy</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 58.86 (10.40) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 77</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not reported</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): 136.29 (69.10) days</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Activities of daily living at end of intervention</p>
|
|
<p>Stroke-specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at end of intervention Psychological distress – depression at end of intervention</p>
|
|
<p>End of intervention = 1-month</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Inpatient treatment in rehabilitation centre in China.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: Not reported.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Chen 2018<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref6" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref6"><sup>6</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=72)</p>
|
|
<p>Patient-centred Self-management Empowerment Intervention consisting of educational sessions during the inpatient period, and telephone follow-ups post-discharge to provide positive reinforcement and empowerment.</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: 5 20-minute daily sessions (day 3-7), 1 60-minute group session, one discharge instruction and four 20-30-minute weekly telephone follow-ups</p>
|
|
<p>Person supporting the intervention: nurses</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: general</p>
|
|
<p>Mechanism of intervention: mixed</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=72)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> Conventional nursing</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 65.4 (11.4) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 144</p>
|
|
<p>Severity (median NIHSS score [range]): Intervention: 4 (1-9)</p>
|
|
<p>Control: 4 (0-9)</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): Not reported</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Hospital readmission at end of intervention</p>
|
|
<p>End of intervention = 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Neurology department in a tertiary care institute in China.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: funded by National Natural Science Fund of China.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Forster 2021<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref8" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref8"><sup>8</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=5)*</p>
|
|
<p>New Start self management intervention including a needs assessment at approximately 6 months, with goal-setting, action-planning and supported self-management care strategy formation.</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=5)</p>
|
|
<p>Continued care as determined by local policy and practices.</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> No additional information.</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 73 (12) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 10</p>
|
|
<p>Severity (mean NIHSS score [SD]): 4.8 (5.0)</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): 13 (21) days</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Participation restrictions at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>End of intervention = 6 months</p>
|
|
<p>End of scheduled follow-up = 9 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Community-based in England and Wales</p>
|
|
<p>Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research Programme.</p>
|
|
<p>*This study is a cluster randomised trial. The number of participants are the number of centers randomised in the trial.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Frank 2000<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref9" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref9"><sup>9</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=19)</p>
|
|
<p>Independent workbook based on individual lifestyle needs in relation to stroke. Individual recovery plans were also developed in consultation with the researcher</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: 2 initial visits in the first week, followed by weekly telephone calls for 3 weeks Person supporting the intervention: not stated</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: general</p>
|
|
<p>Mechanism of intervention: problem solving</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=20)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> None</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 64.0 (13.3) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 39</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not stated/unclear</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): 39.6 (26.2) weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Activities of daily living at end of intervention Psychological distress – depression at end of intervention Self-efficacy at end of intervention</p>
|
|
<p>End of intervention = 4 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Community, delivered via a mix of face-to-face and telephone contacts with individual daily tasks in the United Kingdom</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: Not reported</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Fu 2020<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref11" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref11"><sup>11</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=270)</p>
|
|
<p>‘Take Charge’ sessions which were one-to-one explorations of the individuals’ views on what is important in their lives and what they wanted to prioritise over the following year.</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: 2 Take Charge intervention groups (combined). Group 1 received a single session, group 2 received a second session 6 weeks after the first. Each session lasted 30-60 minutes)</p>
|
|
<p>Person supporting the intervention: nurses and physiotherapists</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: general</p>
|
|
<p>Mechanism of intervention: mixed</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=130)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> None</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 72.1 (12.4) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 400</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not stated/unclear.</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): 45.3 (25.5) days</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Patient/participant generic health-related quality of life at end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>Activities of daily living at end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>Adverse effects at end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>End of scheduled follow-up = 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: community (non-institutional) in New Zealand.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: grant from Health Research Council of New Zealand.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Guidetti 2011<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref12" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref12"><sup>12</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=19)</p>
|
|
<p>Client-centred self-care intervention aiming to enable stroke patients to resume responsibility for their own self-care through a global problem-solving strategy – goal-plan-do-check.</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: varied – occupational therapist contacts occurred when patients achieved their individual goal Person supporting the intervention: occupational therapists</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: functional independency</p>
|
|
<p>Mechanism of intervention: mixed</p>
|
|
<p><b>Active control</b> (n=21)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> Rehabilitation as needed, for example: physiotherapy, speech therapy</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 67.6 (14.6) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 40</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not reported</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): Not reported</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Stroke-specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>End of scheduled follow-up = 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Rehabilitation clinics in Sweden.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: Grants from Karolinska Institute, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm County Council, Solstickan Foundation and The Swedish Association of Occupational Therapists.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Harwood 2012<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref13" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref13"><sup>13</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=85)</p>
|
|
<p>Three combined intervention groups, 1 receiving an 80-minute ‘Take Charge’ session focussed on goal setting, supported by a structured booklet. The second group also received the Take Charge session in addition to an 80-minute inspirational DVD based on stroke survivors’ stories.</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: single session at the start of the intervention</p>
|
|
<p>Person supporting the intervention: research assistant</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: general</p>
|
|
<p>Mechanism of intervention: mixed</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=39)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> None</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 61.3 (13.8) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 124</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not stated/unclear</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): Not reported</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Person/participant generic health-related quality of life at end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>Activities of daily living at end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>Adverse events at end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>End of scheduled follow-up = 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Community, delivered face-to-face in New Zealand.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: The study was funded by the Health Research Council of New Zealand and the B Basham Medical Charitable Trust.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Hoffmann 2015<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref14" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref14"><sup>14</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=12)</p>
|
|
<p>8 sessions, delivering individualised information and activities aimed at developing problem solving skills, communication with health professionals and adjusting to life post-stroke.</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: 8 1-hour sessions</p>
|
|
<p>Person supporting the intervention: occupational therapist</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: general</p>
|
|
<p>Mechanism of intervention: mixed</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=10)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> None</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 59.1 (13.0) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 22</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not reported</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): Not reported</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Self-efficacy at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up Psychological distress – depression at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>Activities of daily living at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>Stroke-specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>End of intervention = 2 months</p>
|
|
<p>End of scheduled follow-up = 5 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Tertiary hospital stroke unit, delivered face-to-face in Australia.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: Early Career Research grant from the University of Queensland and a Griffith University Encouragement grant.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Johnston 2007<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref15" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref15"><sup>15</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=103)</p>
|
|
<p>Workbook-based intervention containing information on stroke and recovery, coping skills and self-management instructions as well as task materials to encourage self-management such as diary sheets, relaxation tapes and breathing exercises.</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: Delivered over a 5-week period with face-to-face contacts at the start of the intervention and 1-week later, and telephone contacts at weekly intervals in weeks 3 and 4 with a final face-to-face contact in week 5</p>
|
|
<p>Person supporting the intervention: Trained health professional</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: General</p>
|
|
<p>Mechanism of intervention: Mixed</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=100)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> None</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 68.9 (12.3) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 203</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not stated/unclear</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): Not reported</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Self-efficacy at end of intervention Psychological distress – depression at end of intervention Activities of daily living at end of intervention</p>
|
|
<p>End of intervention = 5 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Community, delivered face-to-face at home in the United Kingdom.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: Grant from the Scottish Executive Chief Scientist.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Jones 2016<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16"><sup>16</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=2)*</p>
|
|
<p>Bridges Stroke Self-management Programme: one-to-one rehabilitation sessions using 7 principles (problem solving, reflection, goal setting, accessing resources, self-discovery, activity, knowledge) at each session.</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: Unclear</p>
|
|
<p>Person supporting the intervention: Trained stroke health professionals</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: General</p>
|
|
<p>Mechanism of intervention: Goal setting</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=2)*</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> None</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 65.3 (13.9) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 4 (centers)</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not reported</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (median [IQR]): Intervention: 76 (44.5-130.5) days</p>
|
|
<p>Control: 116 (46170.5) days</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Person/participant generic health-related quality of life at end of intervention Self-efficacy at end of intervention Psychological distress – depression at end of intervention Activities of daily living at end of intervention</p>
|
|
<p>End of scheduled follow-up = 12 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Community, delivered face-to-face at home in the United Kingdom.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: National Institute for Health Research grant.</p>
|
|
<p>*This study is a cluster randomised trial. The number of participants are the number of centers randomised in the trial.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Kalav 2021<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref18" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref18"><sup>18</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=34)</p>
|
|
<p>StrokeCARE intervention based on the Chronic Care Model self-management component: booklet containing self-management strategies was given to patients upon discharge.</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: Telephone calls occurred in the 1<sup>st</sup>, 2nd, 4th and 8th weeks post-discharge, each lasting 15-20 minutes</p>
|
|
<p>Person supporting the intervention: Researcher</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: General</p>
|
|
<p>Mechanism of intervention: An alternative method designed to facilitate behaviour change and improvements in physical and psychological functioning</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=34)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> Routine care</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 57.4 (12.8) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 68</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not reported</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): Not reported</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Self-efficacy at end of intervention</p>
|
|
<p>Activities of daily living at end of intervention</p>
|
|
<p>Stroke-specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at end of intervention</p>
|
|
<p>End of intervention = 12 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Inpatient recruitment/communi ty intervention in Turkey.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: Not reported.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Kendall 2007<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref19" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref19"><sup>19</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=58)</p>
|
|
<p>Chronic Disease Self-management Programme (Stanford) with an additional stroke specific information session at the end of the intervention.</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: Weekly 2-hour sessions for 6 weeks</p>
|
|
<p>Person supporting the intervention: Trained stroke health professionals</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: General</p>
|
|
<p>Mechanism of intervention: Mixed</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=42)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> None</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 65.96 (10.67) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 100</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not reported</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): Not reported</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Self-efficacy at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>Stroke-specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>End of intervention = 3 months</p>
|
|
<p>End of scheduled follow-up = 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Community, delivered face-to-face in Australia.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: support from the Australian Research Council, the Motor Accident insurance Commission of Queensland, the Acquired Brain Injury Outreach Service and the Brisbane South Division of General Practice.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Kessler 2017<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref20" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref20"><sup>20</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=10)</p>
|
|
<p>Occupational Performance Coaching: based around emotional support, individualised education and goal-focussed problem-solving.</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: Up to 10 1-hour sessions over 16 weeks</p>
|
|
<p>Person supporting the intervention: Occupational therapist</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: General</p>
|
|
<p>Mechanism of intervention: Mixed</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=11)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> Standard care (not occupational therapy)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 67.8 (15.2) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 21</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not reported</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): 45.7 (66.5) weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Psychological distress – depression at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>Activities of daily living at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up Participation restrictions at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>End of intervention = 14 weeks</p>
|
|
<p>End of scheduled follow-up = 6 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Community, delivered face-to-face at patient’s home in Canada.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: grant from the University of Ottawa.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Kim 2013<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref21" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref21"><sup>21</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=18)</p>
|
|
<p>Web-based education focussed on improving stroke prevention knowledge and self-efficacy of health behaviours (3 topic areas: understanding of stroke, recurrence prevention, family life).</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: Sessions were designed to be completed on a weekly basis for 9 weeks.</p>
|
|
<p>Person supporting the intervention: Trained stroke health professionals</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: General</p>
|
|
<p>Mechanism of intervention: Mixed</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=18)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> None</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 65.7 (7.6) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 36</p>
|
|
<p>Severity (NIHSS score): 0.8 (1.3)</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): 3.6 (3.4) months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Self-efficacy at end of intervention</p>
|
|
<p>End of intervention = 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: community, delivered at face-to-face at home in the Republic of Korea.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: supported by Basic Science Research Programme through the National Research Foundation of Korea.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Li 2021<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref22" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref22"><sup>22</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=33)</p>
|
|
<p>e-intervention providing self-management education based on health beliefs and planned behaviour integration theory with two stages: in-hospital and post-discharge health education. Provided with corresponding support from a nurse to support the intervention.</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=34)</p>
|
|
<p>Usual routine treatment and health education during hospitalisation and usual health education but not specifically aiming to improve self management.</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> No additional information.</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 54.4 (2.8) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 67</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not stated/unclear</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke: Not stated/unclear</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Self efficacy at end of intervention Stroke-specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures at end of intervention</p>
|
|
<p>End of intervention = 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Community in China.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: None reported.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Lund 2012<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref23" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref23"><sup>23</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=48)</p>
|
|
<p>Lifestyle course addressing occupation-based themes through peer exchange, self-reflection, discussion, lectures and outings in addition to physical activity sessions</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: Weekly 2-hour sessions for 36 sessions</p>
|
|
<p>Person supporting the intervention: Occupational therapists and trained volunteers</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: General</p>
|
|
<p>Mechanism of intervention: Goal setting</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=51)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> Volunteer-led physical activity sessions</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 77.1 (7.1) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 99</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not stated/unclear</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): 149 (153) days</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Person/participant generic health-related quality of life at end of intervention</p>
|
|
<p>Activities of daily living at end of intervention</p>
|
|
<p>Psychological distress – depression at end of intervention</p>
|
|
<p>End of intervention = 9 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Community, delivered at face-to-face in Norway.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: funded by the Eastern Health Region in Norway, the Department of Geriatric Medicine at Oslo University Hospital and the Norwegian Women’s Public Health Association, as well as grants from Oslo University College and the Norwegian Association for Occupational Therapists.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Maulet 2021<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref24" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref24"><sup>24</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=17)</p>
|
|
<p>Self-rehabilitation programme with the aim of maintaining the individual’s adherence to a daily self-care routine in the long term.</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: 30 minutes daily over 4 weeks following an initial face-to-face session with the physiotherapist and a telephone call after 2 weeks Person supporting the intervention: Physiotherapists Domain of therapy: Upper limb Mechanism of intervention: Coping with the condition</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=16)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> All people received BOTOX injections, subject to individual needs</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 56.0 (14.2) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 33</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not reported.</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): 9.9 (4.7) years</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Patient/participant generic health-related quality of life at end of intervention</p>
|
|
<p>End of intervention = 4 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Community, delivered at face-to-face at patient’s home in France.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: Partially funded by Allergan.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">McKenna 2015<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref25" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref25"><sup>25</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=12)</p>
|
|
<p>Bridges Self-management Programme: structured one-to-one sessions aiming to enable patients to take control of their daily lives by setting small goals, recording their progress, and problem solving.</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: Weekly 1-hour sessions for 6 weeks</p>
|
|
<p>Person supporting the intervention: Trained stroke health professionals</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: General</p>
|
|
<p>Mechanism of intervention: Mixed</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=13)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> None</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 64.9 (12.4) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 25</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not stated/unclear</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): 9.3 (9.9) weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Person/participant generic health-related quality of life at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>Self-efficacy at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>Activities of daily living at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up Psychological distress – depression at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>Stroke-specific Patient Reported Outcome</p>
|
|
<p>Measures at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>End of intervention = 6 weeks</p>
|
|
<p>End of scheduled follow-up = 4.5 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: community, delivered face-to-face in the United Kingdom.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: Funded by Northern Ireland Chest, Heart and Stroke.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Minshall 2020<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref26" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref26"><sup>26</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=42)</p>
|
|
<p>Stroke Care Optimal Health Programme: patients were given a workbook and psychologist who worked with them individually. The workbook contained educational information and self-management/reflective exercises, culminating in a health plan.</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: 8 weekly 1-hour sessions, followed by a booster session at 3 months</p>
|
|
<p>Person supporting the intervention: Psychologists</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: General</p>
|
|
<p>Mechanism of intervention: Mixed</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=31)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> Usual care</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 67.9 (13.0) years</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not reported</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): 52.2 (93.0) months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Patient/participant generic health-related quality of life at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>Carer generic health-related quality of life at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>Self-efficacy at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>Psychological distress – depression at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>End of intervention = 3 months</p>
|
|
<p>End of scheduled follow-up = 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Mixed home/hospital depending upon patient preference in Australia.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: Grant from Australian Government Collaborative Research Network.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Sabariego 2013<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref30" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref30"><sup>30</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=130)</p>
|
|
<p>Patient education programme consisting of 3 modules: identification of problematic functional areas post-stroke, developing solutions for commonly identified problems, and a refresher session.</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: 5 1-hour sessions delivered on consecutive days Person supporting the intervention: Psychologists</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: General</p>
|
|
<p>Mechanism of intervention: Mixed</p>
|
|
<p><b>Active control</b> (n=130)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> None</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 57.3 (12.8) years</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not reported</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): 150.3 (530.3) days</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Person/participant generic health-related quality of life at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>Self-efficacy at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>Stroke-specific Patient Reported Outcome</p>
|
|
<p>Measures at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>Adverse effects at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>End of intervention = 5 days</p>
|
|
<p>End of scheduled follow-up = 6 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Community, delivered face-to-face in small groups in Germany.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: Supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Sit 2016<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref31" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref31"><sup>31</sup></a></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=105)</p>
|
|
<p>Health Empowerment Intervention for Stroke Self-management. Part 1 consisted of small group sessions to begin personal goal setting and action planning. Part 2 was home implementation where patients worked on the action plan with encouragement from the nurse facilitator.</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: Part 1 had 6-weekly sessions from week 3 – week 8. Part 2 in weeks 9 – 13 contained biweekly telephone calls.</p>
|
|
<p>Person supporting the intervention: Nurses</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: General</p>
|
|
<p>Mechanism of intervention: Mixed</p>
|
|
<p><b>Inactive control</b> (n=105)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> Usual care</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 69.3 (14.1) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 210</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not reported</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): Not reported</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Activities of daily living at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>End of intervention = 1 week</p>
|
|
<p>End of scheduled follow-up = 6 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Ambulatory rehabilitation centre in China</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: Health and Medical Research grant</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Tielemans 2015<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref34" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref34"><sup>34</sup></a></p>
|
|
<p>Subsidiary study: van Mastrigt 2020<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref35" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref35"><sup>35</sup></a></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p><b>Self-management</b> (n=58)</p>
|
|
<p>Self-management intervention aiming to teach proactive action planning strategies around 4 themes: handling negative emotions, social relations and support, participation in society and less visible stroke consequences.</p>
|
|
<p>Frequency: 7 sessions split across 10 weeks: 6 2-hour sessions in the first 6 weeks and a 2-hour booster session in week 10.</p>
|
|
<p>Person supporting the intervention: Psychologist and occupational therapist</p>
|
|
<p>Domain of therapy: Coping with the condition</p>
|
|
<p>Mechanism of intervention: Mixed</p>
|
|
<p><b>Active control</b> (n=55)</p>
|
|
<p><b>Concomitant therapy:</b> None</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>
|
|
<b>People after a first or recurrent stroke</b>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>Mean age (SD): 57.0 (9.0) years</p>
|
|
<p>N = 113</p>
|
|
<p>Severity: Not stated/unclear</p>
|
|
<p>Time period since stroke (mean [SD]): 18.7 (28.3) months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Psychological distress – depression at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>Stroke-specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at end of intervention and end of scheduled follow-up</p>
|
|
<p>End of intervention = 10 weeks</p>
|
|
<p>End of scheduled follow-up = 9 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab2_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Setting: Community, delivered face-to-face in small groups in the Netherlands.</p>
|
|
<p>Sources of funding: Supported by the Dutch VSBFonds and the Dutch Heart Association</p>
|
|
</td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></article><article data-type="table-wrap" id="figobniceng236er13tab3"><div id="niceng236er13.tab3" class="table"><h3><span class="label">Table 3</span><span class="title">Clinical evidence summary: self-management compared to inactive control</span></h3><p class="large-table-link" style="display:none"><span class="right"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab3/?report=objectonly" target="object">View in own window</a></span></p><div class="large_tbl" id="__niceng236er13.tab3_lrgtbl__"><table class="no_bottom_margin"><thead><tr><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="2" colspan="1" headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Outcomes</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="2" colspan="1" headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">№ of participants (studies) Follow-up</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="2" colspan="1" headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="2" colspan="1" headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Relative effect (95% CI)</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5" colspan="2" rowspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Anticipated absolute effects</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="2" colspan="1" headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Comments</th></tr><tr><th headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5" id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Risk with inactive control</th><th headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5" id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Risk difference with self-management</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (EQ-VAS, EQ-5D-3L-VAS, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>87</p>
|
|
<p>(2 RCTs) follow-up: mean 2 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>a</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>b</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life at End of Intervention was 66.83</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>3.29 higher</b> (5.76 lower to 12.35 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 10.31 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (SF-36 Bodily Pain, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>86</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 9 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>c</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life at End of Intervention was 61.6</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>2.5 higher</b> (9.54 lower to 14.54 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 3 (establish ed MID)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (SF-36 General Health, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>86</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 9 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>c</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life at End of Intervention was 60.6</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>3.2 lower</b> (12.2 lower to 5.8 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 2 (establish es MID)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (SF-36 Mental Health, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>86</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 9 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>d</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life at End of Intervention was 77.9</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>1.8 higher</b> (5.13 lower to 8.73 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 3 (establish ed MID)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (SF-12 Mental Component, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>4</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT)<sup>e</sup> follow-up: 12 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>d</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life was 42.8</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>3.3 higher</b> (18.88 lower to 25.48 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 3 (establish ed MID)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (SF-36 Physical Functioning, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>86</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 9 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>d</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life at End of Intervention was 55.3</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0</b> (11.55 lower to 11.55 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 3 (establish es MID)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (SF-12 Physical Component, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>4</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT)<sup>e</sup> follow-up: 12 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>d</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life was 33.1</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>3.2 higher</b> (16.11 lower to 22.51 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 2 (establish ed MID)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (SF-36 Role Emotional, 0100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>86</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 9 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>c</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life at End of Intervention was 57.2</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>11.2 higher</b> (5.15 lower to 27.55 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 4 (establish ed MID)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (SF-36 Role Physical, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>86</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 9 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>c</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (SF-36 Role Physical, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention was 38.8</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>5.5 lower</b> (22.1 lower to 11.1 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 3 (establish ed MID)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (SF-36 Social Functioning, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>86</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 9 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>c</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life at End of Intervention was 71.8</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>2.6 lower</b> (13.32 lower to 8.12 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 3 (establish es MID)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (SF-36 Vitality, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>86</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 9 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>c</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life at End of Intervention was 55.6</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>4.7 lower</b> (12.86 lower to 3.46 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 2 (establish es MID)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (EQ-5D, −0.11-1, higher values are better, change scores) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>24</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 6 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>f</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life at End of Intervention was 0.15</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.06 lower</b> (0.32 lower to 0.2 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 0.03 (establish ed MID)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (EQ-VAS, EQ-5D-3L, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>438 (2 RCTs)</p>
|
|
<p>follow-up: 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕⊕⊕</p>
|
|
<p>High</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 68.8</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>2.25 higher</b> (1.19 lower to 5.7 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 10.3 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (SF-36 Mental Component, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>139</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>d</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 52.17</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.48 higher</b> (2.42 lower to 3.38 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 3 (establish ed MID)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (SF-36 Physical Component, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up follow-up: 12 months</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>139</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>d</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 37.88</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>6.01 higher</b> (2.39 higher to 9.63 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 2 (establish ed MID)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (EQ-5D, −0.11-1, higher values are better, change scores) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>24</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 4.5 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>f</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean person/Participant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 0.09</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.04 higher</b> (0.23 lower to 0.31 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 0.03 (establish es MID)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Carer Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (EQ-5D-3L-VAS, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>54</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>d</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean carer Generic HealthRelated Quality of Life at End of Intervention was 71.29</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>7.93 higher</b> (0.07 higher to 15.79 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 8.6 (0.5 x baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Carer Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (EQ-5D-3L-VAS, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>52</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>d</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean carer Generic HealthRelated Quality of Life at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 69.83</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>3.11 higher</b> (7.69 lower to 13.91 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 8.6 (0.5 x baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Self-Efficacy (Recovery Locus of Control, Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, Self-Efficacy Scale, Sense of Control - Mastery, General Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, Stroke Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, Stroke Self-Management Behaviour Rating Scale [different scale ranges], higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>480</p>
|
|
<p>(8 RCTs)<sup>e</sup> follow-up: mean 9 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>g</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>h</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">SMD <b>1.21</b>
|
|
<b>SD higher</b> (0.27 higher to 2.15 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 0.5 SD (SMD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Self-Efficacy (Stroke Self-Efficacy Questionnaire [different scale ranges], higher values are better, change scores) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>92 (2 RCTs)</p>
|
|
<p>follow-up: 9 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>h</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>i</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">SMD <b>0.01</b>
|
|
<b>SD higher</b> (0.79 lower to 0.8 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 0.5 SD (SMD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Self-Efficacy (Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, Self-Efficacy Scale, General Self-Efficacy Questionnaire [different scale ranges], higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>174</p>
|
|
<p>(3 RCTs) follow-up: 10 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>j</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">SMD <b>0.3 SD higher</b> (0 to 0.6 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 0.5 SD (SMD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Self-Efficacy (Stroke Self-Efficacy Questionnaire, 0-10, higher values are better, change scores) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>24</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 4.5 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>f</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean self-Efficacy at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 0.15</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.24 lower</b> (1.28 lower to 0.8 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 1.1 (0.5 x baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Activities of Daily Living (Barthel Index, Functional Limitations Profile, Extended Activities of Daily Living [different scale ranges], higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>320</p>
|
|
<p>(5 RCTs)<sup>e</sup> follow-up: mean 6 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕⊕◯</p>
|
|
<p>Moderate<sup>i</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">SMD <b>0.1 SD higher</b> (0.12 lower to 0.32 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 0.5 SD (SMD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Activities of Daily Living (Barthel Index, Functional Independence Measure [different scale ranges], higher values are better, change scores) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>299</p>
|
|
<p>(4 RCTs) follow-up: mean 9 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>h</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>k</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">SMD <b>0.19</b>
|
|
<b>SD lower</b> (0.42 lower to 0.04 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 0.5 SD (SMD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Activities of Daily Living (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure - Satisfaction Subscale, 0-10, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>103</p>
|
|
<p>(2 RCTs) follow-up: mean 25 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>l</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean activities of Daily Living at End of Intervention was 6.1</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0</b> (0.92 lower to 0.92 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 1.1 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Activities of Daily Living (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure - Performance Subscale, 0-10, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>103</p>
|
|
<p>(2 RCTs) follow-up: mean 25 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>l</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean activities of Daily Living at End of Intervention was 6.15</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.18 higher</b> (0.63 lower to 1 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 1.1 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Activities of Daily Living (Barthel Index [different scale ranges] higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>722</p>
|
|
<p>(4 RCTs) follow-up: mean 9 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕⊕⊕</p>
|
|
<p>High</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">SMD <b>0.2 SD higher</b> (0.05 higher to 0.35 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 0.5 SD (SMD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Activities of Daily Living (Barthel Index, scale range, Functional Independence Measure [different scale ranges], higher values are better, change scores) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>73</p>
|
|
<p>(2 RCTs) follow-up: mean 5 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>m</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">SMD <b>0.12</b>
|
|
<b>SD higher</b> (0.35 lower to 0.58 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 0.5 SD (SMD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Activities of Daily Living (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure - Performance Subscale, 0-10, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>17</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 6 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>d</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean activities of Daily Living at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 6.1</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0</b> (2.7 lower to 2.7 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 1.2 (0.5 x baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Activities of Daily Living at End of Scheduled Follow-up (Canadian Occupational Performance Measure - Satisfaction Subscale, 0-10, higher better, final values)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>17</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 6 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>d</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean activities of Daily Living at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 5.7</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.1 lower</b> (2.84 lower to 2.64 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 1.0 (0.5 x baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Participation Restrictions (Reintegration to Normal Living Index, 1-110, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>17</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 14 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>a</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>b</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean participation Restrictions at End of Intervention was 86.7</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>2 lower</b> (27.05 lower to 23.05 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 10.4 (0.5 x baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Participation Restrictions (Complex WHODAS score, 0-100, lower values are better, change score) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>9</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT)<sup>n</sup> follow-up: 6 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>o</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>2.07 higher</b> (7.46 lower to 11.6 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 3.3 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Participation Restrictions (Reintegration to Normal Living Index, 1-110, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>17</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 6 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>a</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>b</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean participation Restrictions at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 88.7</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>6.5 higher</b> (10.46 lower to 23.46 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 10.4 (0.5 x baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Participation Restrictions (Complex WHODAS score, 0-100, lower values are better, change score) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>9</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT)<sup>n</sup> follow-up: 9 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>o</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.16 lower</b> (9.82 lower to 9.5 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 3.3 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Psychological Distress - Depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Depression Subscale, Hamilton Depression Scale [different scale ranges], lower values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>446 (8 RCTs)<sup>e</sup> follow-up: mean 12 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>k</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">SMD <b>0.13</b>
|
|
<b>SD lower</b> (0.32 lower to 0.06 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 0.5 SD (SMD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Psychological Distress - Depression (Geriatric Depression Scale Short Form, General Health Questionnaire-28 [different scale ranges], lower values are better, change scores) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>73</p>
|
|
<p>(2 RCTs) follow-up: mean 9 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>m</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">SMD <b>0.41</b>
|
|
<b>SD higher</b> (0.05 lower to 0.88 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 0.5 SD (SMD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Psychological Distress - Depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Depression Subscale [different scale ranges], lower values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>91</p>
|
|
<p>(3 RCTs) follow-up: mean 7.5 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>d</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">SMD <b>0.13</b>
|
|
<b>SD lower</b> (0.54 lower to 0.29 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 0.5 SD (SMD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Psychological Distress - Depression (Geriatric Depression Scale Short Form, General Health Questionnaire [different scale ranges], lower values are better, change scores) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>125</p>
|
|
<p>(3 RCTs) follow-up: mean 7.5 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>d</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">SMD <b>0.17</b>
|
|
<b>SD lower</b> (0.18 lower to 0.53 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 0.5 SD (SMD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke-Specific Quality of Life, Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life - General [different scale ranges], higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>179</p>
|
|
<p>(4 RCTs) follow-up: mean 6 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>h</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>p</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">SMD <b>3.29</b>
|
|
<b>SD higher</b> (0.6 higher to 5.99 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 0.5 SD (SMD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Specific Quality of Life, 1-5, higher values are better, change scores) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>68</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>i</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Intervention was 0.54</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.1 lower</b> (0.45 lower to 0.25 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 0.40 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke-Specific Quality of Life - Energy subscale, 3-15, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>a</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>b</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Intervention was 8.07</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>1.01 higher</b> (0.53 lower to 2.55 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 1.94 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke-Specific Quality of Life - Family Roles subscale, 3-15, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>a</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>b</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Intervention was 10.71</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.4 lower</b> (1.94 lower to 1.14 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 1.86 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke-Specific Quality of Life - Fine Motor Tasks subscale, 5-25, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Intervention was 20.23</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.23 higher</b> (1.62 lower to 2.08 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 2.39 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke-Specific Quality of Life - Language subscale, 5-25, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Intervention was 21.9</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.06 higher</b> (1.46 lower to 1.58 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 1.90 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke-Specific Quality of Life - Mobility subscale, 12-60, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Intervention was 23.1</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.59 higher</b> (1.96 lower to 3.14 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 3.42 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke-Specific Quality of Life - Mood subscale, 5-25, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>a</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>b</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Intervention was 17.76</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.83 higher</b> (1.19 lower to 2.85 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 2.41 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke-Specific Quality of Life - Personality subscale, 3-15, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Intervention was 10</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.33 higher</b> (1.19 lower to 1.85 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 1.85 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke-Specific Quality of Life - Self-Care subscale, 5-25, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>a</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>b</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Intervention was 19.59</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>1.39 higher</b> (0.62 lower to 3.4 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 2.67 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke-Specific Quality of Life - Social Roles subscale, 5-25, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>a</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>b</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Intervention was 13.71</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.88 higher</b> (1.4 lower to 3.16 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 2.80 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke-Specific Quality of Life - Thinking subscale, 3-15, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>a</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>b</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Intervention was 9.34</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.57 higher</b> (0.99 lower to 2.13 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 1.97 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke-Specific Quality of Life - Vision subscale, 3-15, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>a</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>b</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Intervention was 13.59</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.43 higher</b> (0.41 lower to 1.27 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 1.16 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke-Specific Quality of Life - Work Productivity subscale, 3-15, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Intervention was 9.67</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.4 higher</b> (1.15 lower to 1.95 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 2.05 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Aphasia Quality of Life - General, Stroke Specific Quality of Life [different scale ranges], higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>46</p>
|
|
<p>(2 RCTs) follow-up: mean 5 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>f</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">SMD <b>0.05</b>
|
|
<b>SD lower</b> (0.64 lower to 0.53 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 0.5 SD (SMD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Specific Quality of Life - Energy subscale, 3-15, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 9.64</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.27 higher</b> (1.13 lower to 1.67 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 1.68 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Specific Quality of Life - Fine Motor Tasks subscale, 5-25, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>a</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>b</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 20.79</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.3 higher</b> (0.97 lower to 2.45 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 1.48 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Specific Quality of Life - Language subscale, 5-25, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>a</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>b</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 21.32</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.86 higher</b> (0.66 lower to 2.38 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 2.02 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Specific Quality of Life - Mobility subscale, 12-60, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 24.87</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0</b> (2.05 lower to 2.05 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 2.58 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Specific Quality of Life - Mood subscale, 5-25, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>a</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>b</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 18.46</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>1.18 higher</b> (0.74 lower to 3.1 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 2.43 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Specific Quality of Life - Personality subscale, 3-15, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>a</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>b</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 10.54</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.38 lower</b> (1.85 lower to 1.09 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 1.84 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Specific Quality of Life - Self-Care subscale, 5-25, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>a</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>b</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 21.22</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.98 higher</b> (0.63 lower to 2.59 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 2.23 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Specific Quality of Life - Social Roles subscale, 5-25, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>a</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>b</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 14.89</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>2.51 higher</b> (0.14 higher to 4.88 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 2.90 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Specific Quality of Life - Thinking subscale, 3-15, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 9.86</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.23 higher</b> (1.29 lower to 1.75 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 1.80 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Specific Quality of Life - Vision subscale, 3-15, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 13.7</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.28 higher</b> (0.63 lower to 1.19 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 1.23 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Specific Quality of Life - Work Productivity subscale, 3-15, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>100</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>a</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>b</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 11.14</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.48 higher</b> (0.91 lower to 1.87 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 1.68 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Health Service Usage (rehospitalisatio n) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>336</p>
|
|
<p>(3 RCTs) follow-up: mean 4 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>h</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>m</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>q</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">RD 0.04 (−0.17 to 0.09)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">116 per 1,000</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;"><b>40 fewer per 1,000</b> (170 fewer to 90 more)<sup>q</sup></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Precision calculated through Optimal Informatio n Size (OIS) due to zero events in some studies. OIS determined power for the sample size = 0.97 (0.8-0.9 = serious, <0.8 = very serious) MID (clinical importanc e) = 50 per 1000</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Health Service Usage (rehospitalisatio n) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>592</p>
|
|
<p>(3 RCTs) follow-up: mean 6.5 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>m</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">RR 0.87 (0.68 to 1.11)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">333 per 1,000</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;"><b>43 fewer per 1,000</b> (107 fewer to 37 more)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID (precision) = RR 0.80 – 1.25 MID (clinical importanc e) = 50 per 1000</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Health Service Usage (Days Hospitalised, frequency, lower values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>49</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>m</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean health Service Usage at End of Intervention was 2.73</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>1.86 days lower</b> (4.36 lower to 0.64 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 3.05 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Health Service Usage (Days Hospitalised, frequency, lower values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>49</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 6 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>m</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean health Service Usage at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 5.32</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>3.72 days lower</b> (7.67 lower to 0.23 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 4.85 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Health Service Usage (Therapy Hours, frequency, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>49</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>m</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean health Service Usage at End of Intervention was −15.1</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>6.45 hours higher</b> (2.77 lower to 15.67 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 10.05 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Health Service Usage (Therapy Hours, frequency, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>49</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 6 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>m</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean health Service Usage at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 10.5</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>7.93 hours higher</b> (0.25 lower to 16.11 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 10.05 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Health Service Usage (Physician Visits, frequency, lower values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>49</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>m</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean health Service Usage at End of Intervention was −0.8</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.94 higher</b> (0.3 lower to 2.18 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 1.05 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Health Service Usage (Physician Visits, frequency, lower values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>49</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 6 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>m</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean health Service Usage at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 0.8</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>1.01 higher</b> (0.4 lower to 2.42 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 1.2 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Adverse Events at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>346</p>
|
|
<p>(2 RCTs) follow-up: 3 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>k</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>p</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>r</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">RD 0.01 (−0.02 to 0.05)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">20 per 1,000</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;"><b>10 more per 1,000</b> (20 fewer to 50 more)<sup>q</sup></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Sample size used to determine precision: >350 = No imprecisio n 70-350 = serious imprecisio n <70 = very serious imprecisio n</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Adverse Events at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>715</p>
|
|
<p>(3 RCTs) follow-up: mean 10 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>d</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>h</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">RR 0.85 (0.35 to 2.07)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">106 per 1,000</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;"><b>16 fewer per 1,000</b> (69 fewer to 113 more)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID (precision) = RR 0.8 – 1.25</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Adverse Events (Recurrent Stroke) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>400</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>b</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">RR 3.37 (0.78 to 14.61)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">15 per 1,000</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;"><b>36 more per 1,000</b> (3 fewer to 209 more)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab3_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID (precision) = RR 0.8 – 1.25</td></tr></tbody></table></div><div class="tblwrap-foot"><div><dl class="temp-labeled-list small"><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>a</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab3_1"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 2 increments as the majority of the evidence was of very high risk of bias (due to bias due to deviations from the intended intervention, missing outcome data and bias in measurement of the outcome)</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>b</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab3_2"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 1 increment if the confidence interval crossed one MID or by 2 increments if the confidence interval crossed both MIDs</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>c</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab3_3"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 2 increments as the majority of the evidence was of very high risk of bias (due to bias due to deviations from the intended intervention, missing outcome data and bias in selection of the reported results)</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>d</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab3_4"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 2 increments as the majority of the evidence was of very high risk of bias (due to bias due to deviations from the intended intervention and missing outcome data)</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>e</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab3_5"><p class="no_margin">Includes a study with a cluster randomised design, the number of participants includes the number of clusters (in this study, the total number of participants was 78. 40 in the intervention arm, 38 in the control arm).</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>f</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab3_6"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 2 increments as the majority of the evidence was of very high risk of bias (due to bias due to deviations from the intended intervention and bias in selection of the reported result)</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>g</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab3_7"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 2 increments as the majority of the evidence was of very high risk of bias (due to bias due to a mixture of bias arising from the randomisation process, deviations from the intended intervention, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome and selection of the reported result)</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>h</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab3_8"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 1 or 2 increments due to heterogeneity, subgroup analysis not possible</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>i</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab3_9"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 1 increment as the majority of the evidence was at high risk of bias (due to bias due to deviations from the intended interventions)</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>j</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab3_10"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 2 increments as the majority of the evidence was of very high risk of bias (due to bias arising from the randomisation process, deviations from the intended intervention and missing outcome data)</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>k</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab3_11"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 2 increments as the majority of the evidence was of very high risk of bias (due to bias due to bias arising from the randomisation process, deviations from the intended intervention, missing outcome data and selection of the reported result)</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>l</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab3_12"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 2 increments as the majority of the evidence was of very high risk of bias (due to bias due to deviations from the intended intervention, missing outcome data and selection of the reported result)</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>m</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab3_13"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 2 increments as the majority of the evidence was of very high risk of bias (due to bias arising from the randomisation process and deviations from the intended intervention)</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>n</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab3_14"><p class="no_margin">Includes a study with a cluster randomised design, the number of participants includes the number of clusters (in this study, the total number of participants was 269. 145 in the intervention arm, 124 in the control arm).</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>o</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab3_15"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 1 increment as the majority of the evidence was of high risk of bias (due to bias due to missing outcome data)</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>p</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab3_16"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 2 increments as the majority of the evidence was of very high risk of bias (due to bias arising from the randomisation process, deviations from the intended intervention and measurement of the outcome)</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>q</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab3_17"><p class="no_margin">Absolute effect calculated by risk difference due to zero events in at least one arm of one study</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>r</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab3_18"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 1 to 2 increments for imprecision due to zero events and small sample size</p></div></dd></dl></dl></div></div></div></article><article data-type="table-wrap" id="figobniceng236er13tab4"><div id="niceng236er13.tab4" class="table"><h3><span class="label">Table 4</span><span class="title">Clinical evidence summary: self-management compared to active control</span></h3><p class="large-table-link" style="display:none"><span class="right"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab4/?report=objectonly" target="object">View in own window</a></span></p><div class="large_tbl" id="__niceng236er13.tab4_lrgtbl__"><table class="no_bottom_margin"><thead><tr><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="2" colspan="1" headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Outcomes</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="2" colspan="1" headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">№ of participants (studies) Follow-up</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="2" colspan="1" headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Certainty of the evidence (GRAD E)</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="2" colspan="1" headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Relative effect (95% CI)</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5" colspan="2" rowspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Anticipated absolute effects</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="2" colspan="1" headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Comments</th></tr><tr><th headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5" id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Risk with active control</th><th headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5" id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Risk difference with self- management</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Person/Particip ant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (EQ-VAS, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>213</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 5 days</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean person/Particip ant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life at End of Intervention was 62.27</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>1.2 higher</b> (4.06 lower to 6.46 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 9.7 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Person/Particip ant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life (EQ-VAS, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>172</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 6 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean person/Particip ant Generic Health-Related Quality of Life at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 64.29</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.51 higher</b> (5.3 lower to 6.32 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 9.7 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Self-Efficacy (Liverpool Self-Efficacy Scale, 11-44, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>213</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 5 days</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean selfEfficacy at End of Intervention was 29.83</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.54 lower</b> (2.16 lower to 1.08 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 2.4 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Self-Efficacy (Liverpool Self-Efficacy Scale, 11-44, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>172</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 6 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean selfEfficacy at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 30.91</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.33 lower</b> (2.09 lower to 1.43 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 2.4 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Psychological Distress - Depression (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale - Depression Subscale [different scale ranges] lower values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>326</p>
|
|
<p>(2 RCTs) follow-up: mean 6 weeks</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">SMD <b>0.22</b>
|
|
<b>SD lower</b> (0.44 lower to 0)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 0.5 SD (SMD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Psychological Distress - Depression (Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale - Depression Subscale [different scale ranges] lower values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>285</p>
|
|
<p>(2 RCTs) follow-up: mean 7.5 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">SMD <b>0.12</b>
|
|
<b>SD lower</b> (0.35 lower to 0.11 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 0.5 SD (SMD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Impact Scale - Communication Subscale, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>172</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 5 days</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Intervention was 86.91</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>3.02 lower</b> (8.16 lower to 2.12 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 8.4 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Impact Scale - Emotion Subscale, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>172</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 5 days</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Intervention was 58.62</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>1.65 lower</b> (5.56 lower to 2.26 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 6.2 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Impact Scale - Memory Subscale, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>172</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 5 days</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Intervention was 82.19</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>1.38 lower</b> (6.37 lower to 3.61 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 8.5 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Impact Scale - Physical Functioning Subscale, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>172</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 5 days</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Intervention was 70.65</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>1.82 higher</b> (5.2 lower to 8.84 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 12.1 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Impact Scale - Social Participation Subscale, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>172</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 5 days</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Intervention was 63.12</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>3.21 higher</b> (4.53 lower to 10.95 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 13.3 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Impact Scale - Communication Subscale, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>213</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 6 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 87.17</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.05 lower</b> (4.48 lower to 4.38 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 8.4 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Impact Scale - Emotion Subscale, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>213</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 6 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 59.84</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.6 higher</b> (2.62 lower to 3.82 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 6.2 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Impact Scale - Memory Subscale, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>213</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 6 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 83.32</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>1.59 higher</b> (2.88 lower to 6.06 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 8.5 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Impact Scale - Physical Functioning Subscale, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>213</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 6 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕⊕◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Low<sup>a</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 68.63</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>2.99 higher</b> (3.05 lower to 9.03 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 12.1 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Impact Scale - Social Participation Subscale, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>237</p>
|
|
<p>(2 RCTs) follow-up: mean 9 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>b</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>c</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 54.9</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>3.54 higher</b> (2.85 lower to 9.93 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 13.3 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Impact Scale - Self-Assessed Recovery Subscale, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>24</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>d</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>e</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 59</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>4 lower</b> (21.22 lower to 13.22 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 13 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Impact Scale - Activities of Daily Living, 0-100, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>24</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>d</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>e</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 64</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>6 higher</b> (13.22 lower to 25.22 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 10 (0.5 x median control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures (Stroke Specific Quality of Life, 1-5, higher values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>113</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 9 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>e</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>f</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean stroke-Specific Patient Reported Outcome Measures at End of Scheduled Follow-up was 3.5</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.3 higher</b> (0.01 lower to 0.61 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 0.38 (0.5 x median baseline SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Health Service Usage (Hospital readmissions, frequency, lower values are better, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>113</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>f</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>i</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean health service usage (Hospital readmissions) was 1.5</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>0.5 lower</b> (1.75 lower to 0.75 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 2.05 (0.5 x control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Health Service Usage (General Practitioner Attendance, frequency, final values) at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>113</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 12 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>e</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>f</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">-</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The mean health service usage (general practitioner attendance) was 11</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MD <b>2.3 higher</b> (2.95 lower to 7.55 higher)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID = 5.5 (0.5 x control group SD)</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Adverse Events at End of Intervention</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>260</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 5 days</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>a</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>g</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">RD 0.00 (−0.01 to 0.01)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">0 per 1,000</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;"><b>0 fewer per 1,000</b> (10 fewer to 10 more)<sup>h</sup></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Sample size used to determine precision: 75-150 = serious imprecisio n, <75 = very serious imprecision.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Adverse Events at End of Scheduled Follow-up</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>260</p>
|
|
<p>(1 RCT) follow-up: 6 months</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>⊕◯◯◯</p>
|
|
<p>Very low<sup>a</sup><sup>,</sup><sup>f</sup></p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">RR 0.50 (0.05 to 5.45)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">15 per 1,000</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_5 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;"><b>8 fewer per 1,000</b> (15 fewer to 68 more)</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab4_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">MID (precision) = RR 0.8-1.25.</td></tr></tbody></table></div><div class="tblwrap-foot"><div><dl class="temp-labeled-list small"><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>a</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab4_1"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 2 increments as the majority of the evidence was of very high risk of bias (due to bias due to missing outcome data and bias in measurement of the outcome)</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>b</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab4_2"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 2 increments as the majority of the evidence was of very high risk of bias (due to a mixture of bias due to deviations from the intended interventions, bias due to missing outcome data, bias in the measurement of the outcome and bias in the selection of the reported result)</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>c</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab4_3"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 1 or 2 increments because heterogeneity, unexplained by subgroup analysis</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>d</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab4_4"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 2 increments as the majority of the evidence was of very high risk of bias (due to bias due to deviations from the intended interventions, bias due to missing outcome data and bias in the selection of the reported result)</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>e</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab4_5"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 1 increment if the confidence interval crossed one MID or by 2 increments if the confidence interval crossed both MIDs</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>f</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab4_6"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 2 increments as the majority of the evidence was of very high risk of bias (due to bias arising from the randomisation process and bias in the selection of the reported result)</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>g</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab4_7"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 1 to 2 increments for imprecision due to zero events and small sample size</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>h</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab4_8"><p class="no_margin">Absolute effect calculated by risk difference due to zero events in at least one arm of one study</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>i</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab4_9"><p class="no_margin">Downgraded by 1 or 2 increments due to the outcome not directly matching the protocol</p></div></dd></dl></dl></div></div></div></article><article data-type="table-wrap" id="figobniceng236er13tab5"><div id="niceng236er13.tab5" class="table"><h3><span class="label">Table 5</span><span class="title">Health economic evidence profile: Self-management versus inactive control</span></h3><p class="large-table-link" style="display:none"><span class="right"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab5/?report=objectonly" target="object">View in own window</a></span></p><div class="large_tbl" id="__niceng236er13.tab5_lrgtbl__"><table class="no_bottom_margin"><thead><tr><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Study</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Applicability</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Limitations</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Other comments</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Incremental cost</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Incremental effects</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_7" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Cost effectiveness</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_8" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Uncertainty</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Jones 2016<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16"><sup>16</sup></a></p>
|
|
<p>(UK)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Partially applicable<sup>(a)</sup></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Potentially serious limitations<sup>(b)</sup></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Within-RCT analysis (feasibility cluster-RCT, Jones 2016<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16"><sup>16</sup></a>)</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cost-consequence analysis (various health outcomes)</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Population: Patients referred for community stroke rehab who could follow a two-stage command and/or have a carer to assist.</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Comparators:
|
|
<ol><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Community stroke rehabilitation (CSR) (n=38); including PT, OT and SLT (if required).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Self-management program (n=40). Clinicians were trained to integrate seven defined key principles of self-management into existing CSR sessions, supported by a patient-held workbook.</div></li></ol></div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Follow up: 12 weeks</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">£606 to £711<sup>(c)</sup></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">From clinical review (2−1):<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref16"><sup>16</sup></a><sup>(d)</sup>
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Quality of life (SF-12 physical subscale): 3.2 (−16.11, 22.51)</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Quality of life (SF-12 mental subscale): 3.3 (−18.88, 25.48)</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Activities of Daily Living (NEADL): 3.4 (−31.84,36.64)</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Depression HADS-D<sup>(e)</sup>: −1 (−9.23, 7.23)</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Self-efficacy (SSEQ): 4.9 (14.37 to 24.17)</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_7" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">n/a</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_8" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>No sensitivity analyses undertaken.</p>
|
|
<p>It was noted that rehabilitation costs varied substantially between the two cluster units within the self-management program group.</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Te Ao 2022<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref32" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref32"><sup>32</sup></a></p>
|
|
<p>(New Zealand)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Partially applicable<sup>(f)</sup></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Potentially serious limitations<sup>(g)</sup></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Within-trial analysis of the Taking Charge after Stroke (TaCAS)<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref11" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref11"><sup>11</sup></a> RCT included in the clinical review.</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cost-utility analysis (health outcome: QALYs).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Population: Adults who experienced a stroke (<16 weeks prior), living in the community.</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Comparators:
|
|
<dl class="temp-labeled-list"><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>1)</dt><dd><p class="no_top_margin">Inactive control group (n=130) received usual care, including acute inpatient stroke care and early stroke rehabilitation care along with inpatient and community stroke rehabilitation.</p></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>2)</dt><dd><p class="no_top_margin">Two ‘Take Charge’ groups (n=270) received sessions which were one-to-one explorations of the individuals’ views on what is important in their lives and what they wanted to prioritise over the following year. Group 1 received a single session, while group 2 received a second session 6 weeks after the first. Each session lasted 30-60 minutes).</p></dd></dl></dl></div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Follow up: 12 months after stroke</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">(2−1): Saves £1,173<sup>(h)</sup></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">(2−1): 0.04 QALYs gained<sup>(i)</sup></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_7" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Results suggested that the ‘Take Charge’ intervention dominates usual care (lower costs and higher QALYs), however QALY gains were not statistically significant between groups.</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_8" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The primary analysis results were based on a societal perspective; therefore, the results of the sensitivity analyses do not assess the level of uncertainty of the intervention’s cost-effectiveness for a healthcare perspective. The results of the societal perspective also suggested that the ‘Take Charge’ intervention dominates usual care.</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Forster 2021<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref8" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref8"><sup>8</sup></a></p>
|
|
<p>(UK)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Partially applicable<sup>(j)</sup></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Potentially serious limitations<sup>(k)</sup></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Exploratory within-trial analysis of the LoTS2Care cluster feasibility RCT included in the clinical review (same paper).</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cost-utility analysis (health outcome: QALYs)</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Population: Adults between 4 and 6 months since confirmed primary diagnosis of stroke, resident in the community and their carers, and health and social care professionals in the included stroke services.</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Comparators:
|
|
<dl class="temp-labeled-list"><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>1)</dt><dd><p class="no_top_margin">Usual care (n=124). Stroke services randomised to usual care (control) continued to deliver care as determined by local policy and practices.</p></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>2)</dt><dd><p class="no_top_margin">New Start intervention (n=145). Key components were problem-solving, self-management with survivors and carers, help with obtaining usable information, and helping survivors and their carers build sustainable, flexible support networks. The average duration of delivery of New Start intervention by facilitator was 58.6 minutes.</p></dd></dl><li class="half_rhythm"><p class="no_top_margin">Follow-up: 9 months</p></li></dl></div></li></ul>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">2−1: saves £520<sup>(l)</sup></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">2−1: 0.002 Fewer QALYs</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_7" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">£260,140 per QALY lost<sup>(m)</sup></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab5_1_1_1_8" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">The primary analysis results were based on a societal perspective, which produced an ICER of £65,835 per QALY lost. Sensitivity analyses were conducted from a societal perspective and so do not assess the level of uncertainty of the intervention’s cost-effectiveness for a healthcare perspective.</td></tr></tbody></table></div><div class="tblwrap-foot"><div><dl class="temp-labeled-list small"><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt></dt><dd><div><p class="no_margin">Abbreviations: HADS-D= Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale – Depression subscale (higher values are worse); EQ-5D-5L= EuroQol 5 dimensions 5 levels (scale: 0.0 [death] to 1.0 [full health], negative values mean worse than death); ICER= incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; NEALD= Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale; OT= occupational therapy/therapist; PT= physiotherapy/therapist; QALY= quality-adjusted life years; RCT= randomised controlled trial; SLT= speech and language therapy/therapist; SSEQ= Stroke Self-efficacy Questionnaire</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>(a)</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab5_1"><p class="no_margin">2013 UK resource use and 2012 costs may not reflect current UK NHS context. QALYs and cost per QALY gained were not calculated.</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>(b)</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab5_2"><p class="no_margin">Within-trial analysis of costs and clinical outcomes and so only reflects this study and not the wider evidence base identified in the clinical review. Feasibility trial was not designed to evaluate intervention effects with certainty nor long enough to estimate the duration of treatment effect. 12-week trial with no long-term follow-up data may be too short to show much change in healthcare resource use between groups. Results of the analysis of health and social care resource use are not presented, and it is not clear which items have been allocated as stroke-related. Assumptions were used to estimate patient-related non-face-to-face time. Sensitivity analyses were not conducted for the results due to the study design aims seeking to assess the feasibility of a definitive RCT.</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>(c)</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab5_3"><p class="no_margin">2012 UK pounds. Cost components incorporated: Total hours of face to face and non-face to face contact (including training) for OTs, PTs, SLTs and therapy assistants (TA); other stroke-related health and social services (for example GP, practice nurse or other professionals and social care). Patient-related non-face-to-face time was estimated using three alternative assumptions on the ratio of face-to-face to non-face-to-face time (High is 1:1 for OT, PT, SLT and 1:0.5 for TA; Middle is 1:0.5 for OT, PT, SLT and 1:0.25 for TA; Low is 1:0.25 for OT, PT, SLT and for TA).</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>(d)</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab5_4"><p class="no_margin">Mean difference taken from <a href="#niceng236er13.appe">Appendix E</a> guideline clinical review.</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>(e)</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab5_5"><p class="no_margin">Higher scores on HADS indicate worse morbidity, for all other scales this is reversed.</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>(f)</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab5_6"><p class="no_margin">New Zealand version of the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire was used to estimate QALYs when NICE reference case specifies that EQ-5D-3L is preferred. New Zealand 2018 unit costs and 2017 resource use estimates may not reflect current UK NHS context.</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>(g)</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab5_7"><p class="no_margin">Within-trial analysis of costs and outcomes based on a single RCT included in clinical review and so only reflects this study and not the wider evidence base identified in the clinical review. Probabilistic analysis and sensitivity analyses were performed for the societal perspective only and so are not available for the results presented here. One author declared a potential conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>(h)</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab5_8"><p class="no_margin">2018 US dollars converted to UK pounds.<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref29" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref29"><sup>29</sup></a> US dollars were converted from 2017/18 New Zealand dollars ($NZ). Bootstrap results presented here are based on 1000 bootstrap samples. Costs have been presented to reflect an NHS and PSS perspective to be consistent with NICE reference case; reported analysis uses societal perspective for the base case that included non-healthcare costs (short-term loss of income and informal care costs). Cost components incorporated: Cost per ‘Take Charge’ session, outpatient rehabilitation services, home and hospital-level residential care, home help and personal care.</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>(i)</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab5_9"><p class="no_margin">There were no statistically significant differences at 12 months after stroke for EQ-5D-5L (p>0.05).</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>(j)</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab5_10"><p class="no_margin">EQ-5D-5L was used to estimate QALYs when NICE reference case specifies that EQ-5D-3L is preferred.</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>(k)</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab5_11"><p class="no_margin">Exploratory within-trial analysis of a single RCT, therefore results only reflect this study and not the wider evidence base identified in the clinical review. Furthermore, the primary purpose of the analysis was to assess the feasibility of conducting an economic evaluation as part of a definitive trial and was therefore not designed to evaluate intervention effects with certainty. Probabilistic analysis and sensitivity analyses were performed for the societal perspective only and so are not available for the ICER of interest presented here.</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>(l)</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab5_12"><p class="no_margin">2017 UK pounds (£). Costs have been presented to reflect an NHS and PSS perspective to be consistent with NICE reference case; reported analysis uses societal perspective for the base case that included non-healthcare costs (Patient and carer out-of-pocket expenses and time off work). Cost components incorporated: Interventions costs, community health and social services (for example: GP/Nurse/Rehabilitation MDT consultations, home help/care worker appointments and family support groups) and hospital services (for example: inpatient days, day centre, outpatient and A&E visits and residential care).</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>(m)</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab5_13"><p class="no_margin">When the ICER is over £20,000 per QALY lost, intervention 2 is considered the cost-effective option.</p></div></dd></dl></dl></div></div></div></article><article data-type="table-wrap" id="figobniceng236er13tab6"><div id="niceng236er13.tab6" class="table"><h3><span class="label">Table 6</span><span class="title">Health economic evidence profile: Self-management versus active control</span></h3><p class="large-table-link" style="display:none"><span class="right"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab6/?report=objectonly" target="object">View in own window</a></span></p><div class="large_tbl" id="__niceng236er13.tab6_lrgtbl__"><table class="no_bottom_margin"><thead><tr><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab6_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Study</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab6_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Applicability</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab6_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Limitations</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab6_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Other comments</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab6_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Increment al cost</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab6_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Incremental effects</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab6_1_1_1_7" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Cost effectiveness</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab6_1_1_1_8" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Uncertainty</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab6_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>Van Mastrigt 2020<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref35" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref35"><sup>35</sup></a></p>
|
|
<p>(Netherlands)</p>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab6_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Partially applicable<sup>(a)</sup></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab6_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Potentially serious limitations<sup>(b)</sup></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab6_1_1_1_4" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<ul><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Within-RCT analysis (Restore4Stroke, Tielemans 2015<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref34" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref34"><sup>34</sup></a>)</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Cost-utility analysis (QALYs)</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Population: Adults with stroke at least six weeks prior to recruitment, reporting problems in social reintegration</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Comparators:
|
|
<ol><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Stroke-specific education only (n=55); 10 weeks of three 1-hour sessions in the first 6 weeks and one 1-hour booster session in the 10th week. Treatment was provided by one rehabilitation medicine professional (i.e., a psychologist or a social worker) following 1.5 hours of training.</div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Self-management intervention (SMI) based on proactive coping action planning (n=58); 10 weeks of 2-hour sessions for the 6 weeks and one 2-hour booster session in the 10th week. Group-based treatment (4-8 per group) by two rehabilitation staff who received one-day training on SMI content.</div></li></ol></div></li><li class="half_rhythm"><div>Time horizon: 12 months</div></li></ul>
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab6_1_1_1_5" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">£414<sup>(c)</sup></td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab6_1_1_1_6" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">0.05 QALYs</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab6_1_1_1_7" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">£8,284 per QALY gained.</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab6_1_1_1_8" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">None available for the ICER estimate presented here.</td></tr></tbody></table></div><div class="tblwrap-foot"><div><dl class="temp-labeled-list small"><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt></dt><dd><div><p class="no_margin">Abbreviations: ICER= incremental cost-effectiveness ratio; QALY= quality-adjusted life years; RCT= randomised controlled trial.</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>(a)</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab6_1"><p class="no_margin">Dutch 2012-2014 resource use and 2012-unit costs may not reflect current UK NHS context.</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>(b)</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab6_2"><p class="no_margin">Within-trial analysis of costs and outcomes based on Tielemans 2015 RCT included in clinical review and so only reflects this study and not the wider evidence base identified in the clinical review. Baseline differences between intervention groups were not corrected for gender and stroke characteristics (number of months post-stroke, type of stroke and stroke history). Probabilistic analysis and sensitivity analyses were performed for the societal perspective only and so are not available for the ICER of interest presented here.</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>(c)</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab6_3"><p class="no_margin">2012 Euros converted to UK pounds. Costs have been recalculated to reflect an NHS and PSS perspective to be consistent with NICE reference case; reported analysis uses societal perspective for the base case that includes productivity costs; a sensitivity analysis with a healthcare perspective is presented but this excludes costs considered to be relevant including intervention costs, tools and home adaptations. Cost components incorporated: intervention costs (including psychologist and social worker wages for training and delivery of care and workbooks for professionals and patients); healthcare costs (GP and medical consultants, alternative care, prescription drugs, and home care); tools (e.g., braces and special glasses); and home adjustments (e.g., toilet or shower adjustment).</p></div></dd></dl></dl></div></div></div></article><article data-type="table-wrap" id="figobniceng236er13tab7"><div id="niceng236er13.tab7" class="table"><h3><span class="label">Table 7</span><span class="title">Unit costs of health care professionals who may be involved in delivering self-management interventions</span></h3><p class="large-table-link" style="display:none"><span class="right"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.tab7/?report=objectonly" target="object">View in own window</a></span></p><div class="large_tbl" id="__niceng236er13.tab7_lrgtbl__"><table class="no_bottom_margin"><thead><tr><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_1" rowspan="2" colspan="1" headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Resource</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_2" colspan="2" rowspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Cost per working hour<sup>(a)</sup></th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_3" rowspan="2" colspan="1" headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_3" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Source</th></tr><tr><th headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_2" id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Hospital</th><th headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_2" id="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Community</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Band 6/7 PT, OT or SLT</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_2 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">£53/£64</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_2 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">£55/£67</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_3" rowspan="2" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:middle;">PSSRU 2021<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref17" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref17"><sup>17</sup></a></td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Band 6/7 Nurse</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_2 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">£54/£64</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_2 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">£58/£69</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Band 7 psychologist</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_2 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">£64</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_2 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">£67</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">PSSRU 2021<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref17" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref17"><sup>17</sup></a>, assumed to be the same as dietitian<sup>(b)</sup></td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Band 3 Clinical support worker higher level</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_2 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_2_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">£33</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_2 hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_2_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">£32</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.tab7_1_1_1_3" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">PSSRU 2021<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref17" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref17"><sup>17</sup></a>, estimated based on agenda for change band 3 salary<sup>(c)</sup></td></tr></tbody></table></div><div class="tblwrap-foot"><div><dl class="temp-labeled-list small"><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt></dt><dd><div><p class="no_margin">Abbreviations: OT= occupational therapist; PT= physiotherapist; SLT= speech and language therapist</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>a)</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab7_1"><p class="no_margin">Note: Costs per working hour include salary, salary oncosts, overheads (management and other non-care staff costs including administration and estates staff), capital overheads and qualification costs</p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>b)</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab7_2"><p class="no_margin">Same assumption was used in the NICE chronic pain guideline.<a class="bibr" href="#niceng236er13.s1.1.ref27" rid="niceng236er13.s1.1.ref27"><sup>27</sup></a></p></div></dd></dl><dl class="bkr_refwrap"><dt>c)</dt><dd><div id="niceng236er13.tab7_3"><p class="no_margin">Band 3 not in PSSRU 2021 so salary was assumed to equal Band 3 Mean annual basic pay per FTE for administration and estates staff, NHS England (PSSRU2021 p.149).</p></div></dd></dl></dl></div></div></div></article><article data-type="table-wrap" id="figobniceng236er13appjtab1"><div id="niceng236er13.appj.tab1" class="table"><h3><span class="label">Table 12</span><span class="title">Studies excluded from the clinical review</span></h3><p class="large-table-link" style="display:none"><span class="right"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.appj.tab1/?report=objectonly" target="object">View in own window</a></span></p><div class="large_tbl" id="__niceng236er13.appj.tab1_lrgtbl__"><table><thead><tr><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Study</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:bottom;">Code [Reason]</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Aben, Laurien, Heijenbrok-Kal, Majanka H, van Loon, Ellen MP
|
|
et al. (2013) Training memory self-efficacy in the chronic stage after stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
|
|
27(2): 110–117
|
|
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22895620" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 22895620</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Comparator in study does not match that specified in this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Ahn, S. N., Yoo, E. Y., Jung, M. Y.
|
|
et al. (2017) Comparison of Cognitive Orientation to daily Occupational Performance and conventional occupational therapy on occupational performance in individuals with stroke: A randomized controlled trial. NeuroRehabilitation
|
|
40(3): 285–292
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28222552" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 28222552</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Data not reported in an extractable format or a format that can be analysed</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Allen, Kyle, Hazelett, Susan, Jarjoura, David
|
|
et al. (2009) A randomized trial testing the superiority of a postdischarge care management model for stroke survivors. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases
|
|
18(6): 443–452
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC2802837/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC2802837</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19900646" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 19900646</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Data not reported in an extractable format or a format that can be analysed</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Appalasamy, J. (2018) Investigating the effectiveness of health belief constructs incorporated as video narratives on medication understanding and use self-efficacy among stroke patients. [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC6393048/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC6393048</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29851804" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 29851804</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Full text paper not available</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Bonnyaud, C., Gallien, P., Decavel, P.
|
|
et al. (2018) Effects of a 6-month self-rehabilitation programme in addition to botulinum toxin injections and conventional physiotherapy on limitations of patients with spastic hemiparesis following stroke (ADJU-TOX): protocol study for a randomised controlled, investigator blinded study. BMJ Open
|
|
8(8): e020915 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC6119443/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC6119443</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30166290" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 30166290</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- study protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Bosomworth, H., Rodgers, H., Shaw, L.
|
|
et al. (2021) Evaluation of the enhanced upper limb therapy programme within the Robot-Assisted Training for the Upper Limb after Stroke trial: descriptive analysis of intervention fidelity, goal selection and goal achievement. Clinical Rehabilitation
|
|
35(1): 119–134
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC7814096/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC7814096</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32914639" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 32914639</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol</p>
|
|
<p>- Study design not relevant to this review protocol</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Brauer, S. G., Kuys, S. S., Paratz, J. D.
|
|
et al. (2018) Improving physical activity after stroke via treadmill training and self management (IMPACT): a protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMC Neurology
|
|
18(1): 13
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC5791375/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC5791375</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29382298" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 29382298</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- study protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Brauer, Sandra G, Kuys, Suzanne S, Ada, Louise
|
|
et al. (2022) IMproving Physical ACtivity after stroke via Treadmill training (IMPACT) and self-management: A randomized trial. International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society: 17474930221078121 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35102808" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 35102808</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
<i>People received treadmill training in addition to self management rather than a self management program, which the comparator group did not receive making it difficult to see the effect of the self management program alone</i>
|
|
</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Brkic, L., Shaw, L., van Wijck, F.
|
|
et al. (2016) Repetitive arm functional tasks after stroke (RAFTAS): a pilot randomised controlled trial. Pilot & Feasibility Studies
|
|
2: 50 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC5154114/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC5154114</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27965867" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 27965867</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Broderick, M., Bentley, P., Burridge, J.
|
|
et al. (2020) Self-administered gaming exercises for stroke arm disability increase exercise duration by more than two-fold and repetitions more than ten-fold compared to standard care. International journal of stroke
|
|
15(suppl1): 255
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Conference abstract</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Brouwer, B.; Bryant, D.; Garland, S. J. (2018) Effectiveness of Client-Centered “Tune-Ups” on Community Reintegration, Mobility, and Quality of Life After Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Archives of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation
|
|
99(7): 1325–1332
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29412167" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 29412167</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Cadilhac, D. A., Andrew, N. E., Busingye, D.
|
|
et al. (2020) Pilot randomised clinical trial of an eHealth, self-management support intervention (iVERVE) for stroke: feasibility assessment in survivors 12–24 months post-event. Pilot and feasibility studies
|
|
6(1) [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC7648386/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC7648386</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33292693" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 33292693</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Data not reported in an extractable format or a format that can be analysed</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Cadilhac, D. A., Andrew, N. E., Busingye, D.
|
|
et al. (2020) Pilot randomised clinical trial of an eHealth, self-management support intervention (iVERVE) for stroke: feasibility assessment in survivors 12-24 months post-event. Pilot & Feasibility Studies
|
|
6(1): 172
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC7648386/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC7648386</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33292693" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 33292693</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Duplicate reference</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Cadilhac, D. A., Kilkenny, M. F., Srikanth, V.
|
|
et al. (2016) Do cognitive, language, or physical impairments affect participation in a trial of self-management programs for stroke?. International Journal of Stroke
|
|
11(1): 77–84
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26763023" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 26763023</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Data not reported in an extractable format or a format that can be analysed</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Chen, L., Wang, F., Iv, L.
|
|
et al. (2019) The efficacy of a patient-centered self-management empowerment intervention program (PCSMEI) for first-time stroke survivors: a randomized controlled trial. Stroke; a journal of cerebral circulation
|
|
50(suppl1)
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Full text paper not available</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Chen, Lu; Wang, Fang; Shen, Xiaofang (2016) Analysis of application effect of self management model based on empowerment theory in discharge preparation of patients with stroke. Chinese nursing research
|
|
30(10b): 3613–3616
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study not reported in English</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Chen, Y., Wei, Y., Lang, H.
|
|
et al. (2021) Effects of a Goal-Oriented Intervention on Self-Management Behaviors and Self-Perceived Burden After Acute Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Frontiers in neurology [electronic resource]. 12: 650138
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC8329350/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC8329350</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34354655" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 34354655</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- No relevant outcomes</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Cheng, E. M., Cunningham, W. E., Towfighi, A.
|
|
et al. (2018) Efficacy of a Chronic Care-Based Intervention on Secondary Stroke Prevention Among Vulnerable Stroke Survivors: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes
|
|
11(1): e003228
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC5769158/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC5769158</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29321134" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 29321134</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- No relevant outcomes</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Cheng, H. Y.; Chair, S. Y.; Chau, J. P. C. (2018) Effectiveness of a strength-oriented psychoeducation on caregiving competence, problem-solving abilities, psychosocial outcomes and physical health among family caregiver of stroke survivors: A randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Nursing Studies
|
|
87: 84–93 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30059815" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 30059815</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Population not relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Chin, L. F., Hayward, K. S., Chai, A. L. M.
|
|
et al. (2021) A Self-Empowered Upper Limb Repetitive Engagement Program to Improve Upper Limb Recovery Early Post-Stroke: Phase II Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. Neurorehabilitation and Neural Repair
|
|
35(9): 836–848
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34281405" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 34281405</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Data not reported in an extractable format or a format that can be analysed</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Chu, K., Bu, X., Sun, Z.
|
|
et al. (2020) Feasibility of a Nurse-Trained, Family Member-Delivered Rehabilitation Model for Disabled Stroke Patients in Rural Chongqing, China. Journal of Stroke & Cerebrovascular Diseases
|
|
29(12): 105382
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33096497" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 33096497</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Clark, E. (2018) Investigating the feasibility of a group self-management program after stroke. [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC5765599/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC5765599</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29344406" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 29344406</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- study protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Clark, E., MacCrosain, A., Ward, N. S.
|
|
et al. (2020) The key features and role of peer support within group self-management interventions for stroke? A systematic review. Disability & Rehabilitation
|
|
42(3): 307–316
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30325686" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 30325686</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Systematic review used as source of primary studies</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Clark, E., Ward, N. S., Baio, G.
|
|
et al. (2018) Research protocol: investigating the feasibility of a group self-management intervention for stroke (the GUSTO study). Pilot & Feasibility Studies
|
|
4: 31 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC5765599/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC5765599</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29344406" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 29344406</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>- study protocol</p>
|
|
<p>- Duplicate reference</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Coombes, J. A., Rowett, D., Whitty, J. A.
|
|
et al. (2018) Use of a patient-centred educational exchange (PCEE) to improve patient’s self-management of medicines after a stroke: a randomised controlled trial study protocol. BMJ Open
|
|
8(8): e022225 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC6119418/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC6119418</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30166304" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 30166304</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- study protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Da Silva, R., Rodgers, H., Shaw, L.
|
|
et al. (2018) Wristband accelerometers to motivate arm exercise after stroke (WAVES): activity data from a pilot randomised controlled trial. Annals of physical and rehabilitation medicine
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Full text paper not available</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Da-Silva, R. H.; Moore, S. A.; Price, C. I. (2018) Self-directed therapy programmes for arm rehabilitation after stroke: a systematic review. Clinical Rehabilitation
|
|
32(8): 1022–1036
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29756513" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 29756513</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- No relevant outcomes</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Da-Silva, R. H., Moore, S. A., Rodgers, H.
|
|
et al. (2019) Wristband Accelerometers to motiVate arm Exercises after Stroke (WAVES): a pilot randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation
|
|
33(8): 1391–1403
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30845829" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 30845829</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Data not reported in an extractable format or a format that can be analysed</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Damush, T. M., Mackey, J., Saha, C.
|
|
et al. (2018) Stroke self-management effectiveness trial. Stroke; a journal of cerebral circulation
|
|
49(suppl1)
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Conference abstract</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Damush, T. M., Myers, L., Anderson, J. A.
|
|
et al. (2016) Erratum to: “The effect of a locally adapted, secondary stroke risk factor self-management program on medication adherence among veterans with stroke/TIA”. Translational behavioral medicine (TBM)
|
|
6(3): 469 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC4987611/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC4987611</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27528534" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 27528534</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Population not relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Damush, T. M., Myers, L., Anderson, J. A.
|
|
et al. (2016) The effect of a locally adapted, secondary stroke risk factor self-management program on medication adherence among veterans with stroke/TIA. Translational Behavioral Medicine
|
|
6(3): 457–68
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC4987603/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC4987603</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27349906" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 27349906</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Duplicate reference</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Damush, Teresa M, Ofner, Susan, Yu, Zhangsheng
|
|
et al. (2011) Implementation of a stroke self-management program: a randomized controlled pilot study of veterans with stroke. Translational behavioral medicine
|
|
1(4): 561–572
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC3717676/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC3717676</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24073080" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 24073080</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Data not reported in an extractable format or a format that can be analysed</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Davison, W. J., Myint, P. K., Clark, A. B.
|
|
et al. (2018) Does self-monitoring and self-management of blood pressure after stroke or transient ischemic attack improve control? TEST-BP, a randomized controlled trial. American Heart Journal
|
|
203: 105–108
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30060882" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 30060882</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- No relevant outcomes</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Deyhoul, N., Vasli, P., Rohani, C.
|
|
et al. (2020) The effect of family-centered empowerment program on the family caregiver burden and the activities of daily living of Iranian patients with stroke: a randomized controlled trial study. Aging-Clinical & Experimental Research
|
|
32(7): 1343–1352
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31473982" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 31473982</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Full text paper not available</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Doussoulin, A., Arancibia, M., Saiz, J.
|
|
et al. (2017) Recovering functional independence after a stroke through Modified Constraint-Induced Therapy. Neurorehabilitation
|
|
40(2): 243–249
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28222546" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 28222546</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Comparator in study does not match that specified in this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Duncan, P. W., Bushnell, C. D., Jones, S. B.
|
|
et al. (2020) Randomized Pragmatic Trial of Stroke Transitional Care: The COMPASS Study. Circulation. Cardiovascular Quality & Outcomes
|
|
13(6): e006285
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32475159" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 32475159</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Population not relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Feigin, V., Jones, K., Bhattacharjee, R.
|
|
et al. (2016) Stroke self-management rehabilitation trial. International journal of stroke
|
|
11(suppl3): 16
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Conference abstract</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Fishman, K. N.; Ashbaugh, A. R.; Swartz, R. H. (2021) Goal Setting Improves Cognitive Performance in a Randomized Trial of Chronic Stroke Survivors. Stroke [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33467876" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 33467876</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Data not reported in an extractable format or a format that can be analysed</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Flemming, Kelly D, Allison, Thomas G, Covalt, Jody L
|
|
et al. (2013) Utility of a posthospitalization stroke prevention program managed by nurses. Hospital practice
|
|
41(3): 70–79
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23948623" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 23948623</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Population not relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Freund, M., Carey, M., Dilworth, S.
|
|
et al. (2021) Effectiveness of information and communications technology interventions for stroke survivors and their support people: a systematic review. Disability & Rehabilitation: 1–16 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33905279" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 33905279</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>- Systematic review used as source of primary studies</p>
|
|
<p>- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Fryer, C. E., Luker, J. A., McDonnell, M. N.
|
|
et al. (2016) Self-Management Programs for Quality of Life in People With Stroke. Stroke
|
|
47(12): e266–e267
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27895302" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 27895302</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Duplicate reference</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Fryer, C. E., Luker, J. A., McDonnell, M. N.
|
|
et al. (2016) Self management programmes for quality of life in people with stroke (Cochrane review) [with consumer summary]. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
|
|
2016;Issue 8 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC6450423/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC6450423</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27545611" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 27545611</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Duplicate reference</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Fugazzaro, S., Denti, M., Accogli, M. A.
|
|
et al. (2021) Self-Management in Stroke Survivors: Development and Implementation of the Look after Yourself (LAY) Intervention. International Journal of Environmental Research & Public Health [Electronic Resource]
|
|
18(11): 31 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC8198104/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC8198104</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34072998" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 34072998</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study design not relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Fukuoka, Y., Hosomi, N., Hyakuta, T.
|
|
et al. (2019) Effects of a disease management program for preventing recurrent ischemic stroke: A randomized controlled study. Stroke
|
|
50(3): 705–712
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30802185" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 30802185</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- No relevant outcomes</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Fukuoka, Y., Hosomi, N., Hyakuta, T.
|
|
et al. (2019) Effects of a Disease Management Program for Preventing Recurrent Ischemic Stroke. Stroke
|
|
50(3): 705–712
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30802185" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 30802185</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Duplicate reference</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Geng, G., He, W., Ding, L.
|
|
et al. (2019) Impact of transitional care for discharged elderly stroke patients in China: an application of the Integrated Behavioral Model. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation
|
|
26(8): 621–629
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31369355" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 31369355</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study design not relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Golding, K.; Fife-Schaw, C.; Kneebone, I. (2018) A pilot randomized controlled trial of self-help relaxation to reduce post-stroke depression. Clinical Rehabilitation
|
|
32(6): 747–751
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29166778" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 29166778</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study design not relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Golding, K.; Kneebone, I.; Fife-Schaw, C. (2016) Self-help relaxation for post-stroke anxiety: a randomised, controlled pilot study. Clinical Rehabilitation
|
|
30(2): 174–80
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25780259" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 25780259</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>- No relevant outcomes</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
<i>Only reports HADS-A instead of HADS-D. Therefore, no protocol outcomes</i>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>- Study design not relevant to this review protocol</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Gordon
|
|
MF, Brashear
|
|
A, Elovic
|
|
E
|
|
et al. (2004) Repeated dosing of botulinum toxin type A for upper limb spasticity following stroke. Neurology
|
|
63(10): 1971–1973
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15557529" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 15557529</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Gracies, J. M., Pradines, M., Ghedira, M.
|
|
et al. (2019) Guided Self-rehabilitation Contract vs conventional therapy in chronic stroke-induced hemiparesis: NEURORESTORE, a multicenter randomized controlled trial. BMC Neurology
|
|
19(1): 39
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC6419473/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC6419473</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30871480" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 30871480</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- study protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Graven, C., Brock, K., Hill, K. D.
|
|
et al. (2016) First Year After Stroke: An Integrated Approach Focusing on Participation Goals Aiming to Reduce Depressive Symptoms. Stroke
|
|
47(11): 2820–2827
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27738234" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 27738234</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- No relevant outcomes</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Guidetti, S.; Ranner, M.; Tham, K. (2016) A client-centred ADL intervention for persons with stroke: one-year follow-up of a randomized controlled tria. Clinical rehabilitation
|
|
29(10): 1019–1020
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Data not reported in an extractable format or a format that can be analysed</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Guidetti, Susanne, Andersson, Karin, Andersson, Magnus
|
|
et al. (2010) Client-centred self-care intervention after stroke: a feasibility study. Scandinavian journal of occupational therapy
|
|
17(4): 276–285
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20187757" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 20187757</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Secondary publication of an included study that does not provide any additional relevant information</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Gustafsson, L., Cornwell, P., Hodson
|
|
et al. (2020) Effectiveness of a telehealth self-management program for people with mild stroke: results of a randomised controlled trial with longitudinal follow-up. International journal of stroke
|
|
15(suppl1): 157
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Conference abstract</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Han, D. S.; Chuang, P. W.; Chiu, E. C. (2020) Effect of home-based reablement program on improving activities of daily living for patients with stroke: a pilot study. Medicine
|
|
99(49): e23512
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC7717807/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC7717807</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33285763" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 33285763</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Harel-Katz, H., Adar, T., Milman, U.
|
|
et al. (2020) Examining the feasibility and effectiveness of a culturally adapted participation-focused stroke self-management program in a day-rehabilitation setting: A randomized pilot study. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation
|
|
27(8): 577–589
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32174261" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 32174261</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- No relevant outcomes</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Hedman, A., Eriksson, G., von Koch, L.
|
|
et al. (2019) Five-year follow-up of a cluster-randomized controlled trial of a client-centred activities of daily living intervention for people with stroke. Clinical Rehabilitation
|
|
33(2): 262–276
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC6348459/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC6348459</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30409049" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 30409049</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Hill, K., House, A., Knapp, P.
|
|
et al. (2019) Prevention of mood disorder after stroke: a randomised controlled trial of problem solving therapy versus volunteer support. BMC Neurology
|
|
19(1): 128
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC6567381/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC6567381</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31200668" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 31200668</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Data not reported in an extractable format or a format that can be analysed</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Hill, V. A., Vickrey, B. G., Cheng, E. M.
|
|
et al. (2017) A Pilot Trial of a Lifestyle Intervention for Stroke Survivors: Design of Healthy Eating and Lifestyle after Stroke (HEALS). Journal of Stroke & Cerebrovascular Diseases
|
|
26(12): 2806–2813
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28823491" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 28823491</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- No relevant outcomes</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Hjelle
|
|
EG, Bragstad
|
|
LK, Kirkevold
|
|
M
|
|
et al. (2019) Effect of a dialogue-based intervention on psychosocial well-being 6 months after stroke in Norway: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of rehabilitation medicine
|
|
51(8): 557–565
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31411337" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 31411337</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Hwang, N. K.; Park, J. S.; Chang, M. Y. (2021) Telehealth Interventions to Support Self-Management in Stroke Survivors: A Systematic Review. Healthcare
|
|
9(4): 15 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC8071480/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC8071480</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33921183" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 33921183</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Systematic review used as source of primary studies</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Jones, Kelly M, Bhattacharjee, Rohit, Krishnamurthi, Rita
|
|
et al. (2015) Methodology of the stroke self-management rehabilitation trial: an international, multisite pilot trial. Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases
|
|
24(2): 297–303
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25498738" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 25498738</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- study protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Kaddumukasa, M., Najjuma, J., Mbalinda, S. N.
|
|
et al. (2021) Reducing stroke burden through a targeted self-management intervention for reducing stroke risk factors in high-risk Ugandans: A protocol for a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource]
|
|
16(6): e0251662
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC8219138/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC8219138</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34157024" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 34157024</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- study protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Kamwesiga, J. T., Eriksson, G. M., Tham, K.
|
|
et al. (2018) A feasibility study of a mobile phone supported family-centred ADL intervention, F@ce TM, after stroke in Uganda. Global Health
|
|
14(1): 82
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC6094578/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC6094578</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30111333" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 30111333</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Data not reported in an extractable format or a format that can be analysed</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Kang, Hyun-Sook, Kim, Won-Ock, Kim, Jeong-Wha
|
|
et al. (2004) Development and effect of east-west self-help group program for rehabilitation of post-stroke clients: A preliminary study. Korean Journal of Adult Nursing
|
|
16(1): 37–48 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15687776" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 15687776</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study not reported in English</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Kang, Kaining and Li, Shurui (2022) A WeChat-based caregiver education program improves satisfaction of stroke patients and caregivers, also alleviates poststroke cognitive impairment and depression: A randomized, controlled study. Medicine
|
|
101(27): e29603
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC9259181/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC9259181</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35801782" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 35801782</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol <i>Telerehabilitation intervention that was not strictly self management</i></td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Kersey, J.; Juengst, S. B.; Skidmore, E. (2019) Effect of Strategy Training on Self-Awareness of Deficits After Stroke. American Journal of Occupational Therapy
|
|
73(3): 7303345020p1–7303345020p7 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC6533049/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC6533049</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31120846" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 31120846</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Comparator in study does not match that specified in this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Kessler, D. and Liddy, C. (2017) An integrative literature review to examine the provision of self-management support following transient ischaemic attack. Journal of Clinical Nursing
|
|
26(2122): 3256–3270
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28001339" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 28001339</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study design not relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Kristine Stage Pedersen, S., Lillelund Sorensen, S., Holm Stabel, H.
|
|
et al. (2020) Effect of Self-Management Support for Elderly People Post-Stroke: A Systematic Review. Geriatrics
|
|
5(2): 18
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC7345508/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC7345508</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32570761" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 32570761</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Systematic review used as source of primary studies</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Lennon, O., Blake, C., Booth, J.
|
|
et al. (2018) Interventions for behaviour change and self-management in stroke secondary prevention: protocol for an overview of reviews. Systematic Reviews
|
|
7(1): 231
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC6292177/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC6292177</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30545406" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 30545406</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- study protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Lewthwaite, R., Winstein, C. J., Lane, C. J.
|
|
et al. (2018) Accelerating Stroke Recovery: Body Structures and Functions, Activities, Participation, and Quality of Life Outcomes From a Large Rehabilitation Trial. Neurorehabilitation & Neural Repair
|
|
32(2): 150–165
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC5863583/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC5863583</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29554849" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 29554849</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Lin, A. M., Vickrey, B. G., Barry, F.
|
|
et al. (2020) Factors Associated With Participation in the Chronic Disease Self-Management Program: Findings From the SUCCEED Trial. Stroke
|
|
51(10): 2910–2917
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC8269960/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC8269960</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32912091" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 32912091</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>- Secondary publication of an included study that does not provide any additional relevant information</p>
|
|
<p>- No relevant outcomes</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Lindley, R. I., Anderson, C. S., Billot, L.
|
|
et al. (2017) Family-led rehabilitation after stroke in India (ATTEND): a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet
|
|
390(10094): 588–599 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28666682" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 28666682</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Lo, S. H. S. (2016) A self-efficacy enhancing stroke self-management program for community-dwelling stroke survivors (SESSMP).
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Full text paper not available</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Lo, S. H. S.; Chang, A. M.; Chau, J. P. C. (2018) Stroke Self-Management Support Improves Survivors’ Self-Efficacy and Outcome Expectation of Self-Management Behaviors. Stroke
|
|
49(3): 758–760
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29438073" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 29438073</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Data not reported in an extractable format or a format that can be analysed</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Lo, S. H. S., Chau, J. P. C., Chang, A. M.
|
|
et al. (2019) Coaching Ongoing Momentum Building On stroKe rEcovery journeY (‘COMBO-KEY’): a randomised controlled trial protocol. BMJ Open
|
|
9(4): e027936 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC6502055/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC6502055</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31048448" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 31048448</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- study protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Lo, S. H.; Chang, A. M.; Chau, J. P. (2016) Study protocol: a randomised controlled trial of a nurse-led community-based self-management programme for improving recovery among community-residing stroke survivors. BMC Health Services Research
|
|
16(a): 387
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC4986193/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC4986193</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27528049" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 27528049</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- study protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Lo, S. H.; Chang, A. M.; Chau, J. P. (2018) A stroke self-management program to enhance self-efficacy and outcome expectation: a randomized controlled trial. Stroke; a journal of cerebral circulation
|
|
49(suppl1)
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Conference abstract</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Lu, Chen (2017) Effectiveness of a Patient-Centered Self-Management Empowerment Intervention during Transition Care on Stroke Survivors. Dissertation/ thesis: 1–1
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Not a peer-reviewed publication</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Mansfield, A., Brooks, D., Tang, A.
|
|
et al. (2017) Promoting Optimal Physical Exercise for Life (PROPEL): aerobic exercise and self-management early after stroke to increase daily physical activity-study protocol for a stepped-wedge randomised trial. BMJ Open
|
|
7(6): e015843 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC5726051/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC5726051</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28667222" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 28667222</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- study protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Mansfield, A., Knorr, S., Poon, V.
|
|
et al. (2016) Promoting Optimal Physical Exercise for Life: An Exercise and Self-Management Program to Encourage Participation in Physical Activity after Discharge from Stroke Rehabilitation-A Feasibility Study. Stroke Research and Treatment
|
|
2016: 9476541 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC4904109/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC4904109</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27313948" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 27313948</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- No relevant outcomes</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Maulet, T., Pouplin, S., Bensmail, D.
|
|
et al. (2020) Self-rehabilitation combined with botulinum toxin to improve arm function in people with chronic stroke. A randomized controlled trial. Annals of physical and rehabilitation medicine [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33152520" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 33152520</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Duplicate reference</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
McNaughton, H. (2017) Self-directed rehabilitation randomised controlled trial after stroke: a practical, low cost programme. The Taking Charge after Stroke (TaCAS) study.
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Duplicate reference</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
McNaughton, H. and Fu, V. (2019) Taking charge after stroke: cost effectiveness analysis of a randomised controlled trial of a person-centred intervention to promote self-rehabilitation. European stroke journal
|
|
4(suppl1): 93
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Duplicate reference</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
McNaughton, H., Weatherall, M., McPherson, K.
|
|
et al. (2021) The effect of the Take Charge intervention on mood, motivation, activation and risk factor management: Analysis of secondary data from the Taking Charge after Stroke (TaCAS) trial. Clinical Rehabilitation
|
|
35(7): 1021–1031
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33586474" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 33586474</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Secondary publication of an included study that does not provide any additional relevant information</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Natta, D. D. N., Lejeune, T., Detrembleur, C.
|
|
et al. (2020) Effectiveness of a self-rehabilitation program to improve upper-extremity function after stroke in developing countries: a randomized controlled trial. Annals of physical and rehabilitation medicine [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32619630" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 32619630</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Natta, D. D. N., Lejeune, T., Detrembleur, C.
|
|
et al. (2018) A randomized controlled trial assessing the efficacy of an upper limb self-rehabilitation programme among chronic Beninese stroke patients. Annals of physical and rehabilitation medicine
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Conference abstract</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Niama Natta, D. D., Lejeune, T., Detrembleur, C.
|
|
et al. (2021) Effectiveness of a self-rehabilitation program to improve upper-extremity function after stroke in developing countries: A randomized controlled trial. Annals of Physical & Rehabilitation Medicine
|
|
64(1): 101413
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32619630" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 32619630</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Full text paper not available</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Nichol, L., Hill, A. J., Wallace, S. J.
|
|
et al. (2019) Self-management of aphasia: a scoping review. Aphasiology
|
|
33(8): 903–942
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Population not relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Oh, H. X., De Silva, D. A., Toh, Z. A.
|
|
et al. (2021) The effectiveness of self-management interventions with action-taking components in improving health-related outcomes for adult stroke survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Disability & Rehabilitation: 1–16 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34757862" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 34757862</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Systematic review used as source of primary studies</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Ortiz-Fernandez, L., Sagastagoya Zabala, J., Gutierrez-Ruiz, A.
|
|
et al. (2019) Efficacy and Usability of eHealth Technologies in Stroke Survivors for Prevention of a New Stroke and Improvement of Self-Management: Phase III Randomized Control Trial. Methods and Protocols
|
|
2(2): 13
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC6632173/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC6632173</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31200541" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 31200541</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- study protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Pallesen, H., Naess-Schmidt, E. T., Kjeldsen, S. S.
|
|
et al. (2018) “Stroke - 65 Plus. Continued Active Life”: a study protocol for a randomized controlled cross-sectoral trial of the effect of a novel self-management intervention to support elderly people after stroke. Trials [Electronic Resource]
|
|
19(1): 639
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC6245630/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC6245630</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30454014" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 30454014</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- study protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Palmer, R., Dimairo, M., Cooper, C.
|
|
et al. (2019) Self-managed, computerised speech and language therapy for patients with chronic aphasia post-stroke compared with usual care or attention control (Big CACTUS): a multicentre, single-blinded, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Neurology
|
|
18(9): 821–833
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC6700375/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC6700375</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31397288" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 31397288</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Palmer, R., Dimairo, M., Latimer, N.
|
|
et al. (2020) Computerised speech and language therapy or attention control added to usual care for people with long-term post-stroke aphasia: the Big CACTUS three-arm RCT. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England)
|
|
24(19): 1–176 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC7232133/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC7232133</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32369007" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 32369007</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Duplicate reference</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Paul, L., Wyke, S., Brewster, S.
|
|
et al. (2016) Increasing physical activity in stroke survivors using STARFISH, an interactive mobile phone application: A pilot study. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation
|
|
23(3): 170–177
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27077973" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 27077973</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study design not relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Picelli, A., Filippetti, M., Del Piccolo, L.
|
|
et al. (2020) Rehabilitation and Biomarkers of Stroke Recovery: Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial. Frontiers in neurology [electronic resource]. 11: 618200
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC7843518/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC7843518</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33519698" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 33519698</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- study protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Potter, J. (2016) Effectiveness of self-monitoring and treatment of blood pressure following stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TEST-BP).
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Full text paper not available</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Poulin, V., Korner-Bitensky, N., Bherer, L.
|
|
et al. (2017) Comparison of two cognitive interventions for adults experiencing executive dysfunction post-stroke: a pilot study. Disability & Rehabilitation
|
|
39(1): 1–13
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26750772" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 26750772</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study design not relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Pradines, M., Ghedira, M., Portero, R.
|
|
et al. (2019) Ultrasound Structural Changes in Triceps Surae After a 1-Year Daily Self-stretch Program: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial in Chronic Hemiparesis. Neurorehabilitation & Neural Repair
|
|
33(4): 245–259
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30900512" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 30900512</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol</p>
|
|
<p>- No relevant outcomes</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Preston, E. (2016) Promoting physical activity after stroke via self-management: a pilot randomised trial.
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Duplicate reference</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Preston, E., Dean, C. M., Ada, L.
|
|
et al. (2017) Promoting physical activity after stroke via self-management: a feasibility study. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation
|
|
24(5): 353–360
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28335690" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 28335690</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>- Study design not relevant to this review protocol</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
<i>Single arm study</i>
|
|
</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Rajendran, V., Jeevanantham, D., Lariviere, C.
|
|
et al. (2021) Effectiveness of self-administered mirror therapy on upper extremity impairments and function of acute stroke patients: study protocol. Trials [Electronic Resource]
|
|
22(1): 439
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC8268536/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC8268536</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34243808" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 34243808</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- study protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Rand, D., Weingarden, H., Weiss, R.
|
|
et al. (2017) Self-training to improve UE function at the chronic stage post-stroke: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Disability & Rehabilitation
|
|
39(15): 1541–1548
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27793071" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 27793071</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Comparator in study does not match that specified in this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Reistetter, T. and Hreha, K. P. (2020) Feasibility of a stroke specific self-management program.
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Full text paper not available</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Rouche, N. (2018) The effect of a self-rehabilitation program in addition to usual treatment for spasticity on impairment and activity limitation in patients with spastic hemiparesis following stroke (ADJU-TOX).
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Full text paper not available</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Ruksakulpiwat, S. and Zhou, W. (2021) Self-management interventions for adults with stroke: A scoping review. Chronic Diseases & Translational Medicine
|
|
7(3): 139–148
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC8413126/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC8413126</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34505014" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 34505014</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Systematic review used as source of primary studies</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Sahebalzamani, Mohammad; Aliloo, Leila; Shakibi, Ali (2009) The efficacy of self-care education on rehabilitation of stroke patients. Saudi medical journal
|
|
30(4): 550–4
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19370286" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 19370286</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- No relevant outcomes</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Sajatovic, M., Tatsuoka, C., Welter, E.
|
|
et al. (2016) A targeted self-management approach for reducing stroke risk factors in young African-American men who have experienced stroke or transient ischemic attack. Stroke; a journal of cerebral circulation
|
|
47(suppl1) [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC6241515/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC6241515</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28530142" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 28530142</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Population not relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Sajatovic, M., Tatsuoka, C., Welter, E.
|
|
et al. (2018) A Targeted Self-Management Approach for Reducing Stroke Risk Factors in African American Men Who Have Had a Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack. American Journal of Health Promotion
|
|
32(2): 282–293
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC6241515/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC6241515</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28530142" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 28530142</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>- Population not relevant to this review protocol</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
<i>Includes people who had a TIA (>20%)</i>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>- Duplicate reference</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Sakakibara, B. M.; Kim, A. J.; Eng, J. J. (2017) A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Self-Management for Improving Risk Factor Control in Stroke Patients. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine
|
|
24(1): 42–53
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC5762183/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC5762183</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27469998" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 27469998</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- No relevant outcomes</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Sakakibara, B. M., Lear, S. A., Barr, S. I.
|
|
et al. (2021) Telehealth coaching to improve self-management for secondary prevention after stroke: A randomized controlled trial of Stroke Coach. International Journal of Stroke: 17474930211017699 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33949270" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 33949270</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Comparator in study does not match that specified in this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Shaw, L., Bhattarai, N., Cant, R.
|
|
et al. (2020) An extended stroke rehabilitation service for people who have had a stroke: the EXTRAS RCT. Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England)
|
|
24(24): 1–202 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC7294395/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC7294395</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32468989" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 32468989</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Shimada, S. (2017) Effect of the self-monitoring of accelerometer-based feedback on physical activity in hospitalized patients with ischemic stroke: a randomized controlled trial. [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29400070" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 29400070</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Full text paper not available</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Sit, J. W., Chair, S. Y., Chan Yip, C. W.
|
|
et al. (2018) Effect of health empowerment intervention for stroke self-management on behaviour and health in stroke rehabilitation patients. Hong Kong Medical Journal
|
|
24suppl2(1): 12–15 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29938651" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 29938651</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Data not reported in an extractable format or a format that can be analysed</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Sit, J. W., Chair, S. Y., Choi, K. C.
|
|
et al. (2017) Strategies for enhancing stroke self-management among older stroke survivors: a mixed methods inquiry. Stroke; a journal of cerebral circulation
|
|
48(suppl1)
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Conference abstract</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Skidmore, E. R., Swafford, M., Juengst, S. B.
|
|
et al. (2018) Self-Awareness and Recovery of Independence With Strategy Training. American Journal of Occupational Therapy
|
|
72(1): 7201345010p1-7201345010p5 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC5744716/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC5744716</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29280726" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 29280726</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Comparator in study does not match that specified in this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Slenders, J. P. L., Van den Berg-Vos, R. M., van Heugten, C. M.
|
|
et al. (2020) Screening and patient-tailored care for emotional and cognitive problems compared to care as usual in patients discharged home after ischemic stroke (ECO-stroke): a protocol for a multicenter, patient-blinded, cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Services Research
|
|
20(1): 1049
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC7670662/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC7670662</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33203405" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 33203405</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- study protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Swank, C., Trammell, M., Callender, L.
|
|
et al. (2020) The impact of a patient-directed activity program on functional outcomes and activity participation after stroke during inpatient rehabilitation-a randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation
|
|
34(4): 504–514
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31937123" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 31937123</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- No relevant outcomes</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Taft, K., Laing, B., Wensley, C.
|
|
et al. (2021) Health promotion interventions post-stroke for improving self-management: A systematic review. JRSM Cardiovascular Disease
|
|
10: 20480040211004416
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC8082985/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC8082985</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33996032" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 33996032</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>- Systematic review used as source of primary studies</p>
|
|
<p>- No relevant outcomes</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Te Ao, B., Harwood, M., Fu, V.
|
|
et al. (2021) Economic analysis of the ‘Take Charge’ intervention for people following stroke: Results from a randomised trial. Clinical Rehabilitation: 2692155211040727 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34414801" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 34414801</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- No relevant outcomes</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Terrill, A. L., Reblin, M., MacKenzie, J. J.
|
|
et al. (2018) Development of a novel positive psychology-based intervention for couples post-stroke. Rehabilitation Psychology
|
|
63(1): 43–54
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC5862074/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC5862074</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29553781" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 29553781</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- No relevant outcomes</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Tielemans, N. S., Schepers, V. P., Visser-Meily, J. M.
|
|
et al. (2016) Process evaluation of the Restore4stroke Self-Management intervention ‘Plan Ahead!’: a stroke-specific self-management intervention. Clinical rehabilitation
|
|
30(12): 1175–1185
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC5131629/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC5131629</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26658332" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 26658332</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- No relevant outcomes</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Ting, Z. H. U., Yalian, H. U. A. N. G., Yanchun, F. A. N. G.
|
|
et al. (2020) Effect of positive psychological intervention based on PERMA model on disability acceptance and self-care disability in stroke patients. Chinese nursing research
|
|
34(6): 965–970
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Full text paper not available</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Towfighi, A., Cheng, E. M., Ayala-Rivera, M.
|
|
et al. (2017) Randomized controlled trial of a coordinated care intervention to improve risk factor control after stroke or transient ischemic attack in the safety net: Secondary stroke prevention by Uniting Community and Chronic care model teams Early to End Disparities (SUCCEED). BMC Neurology
|
|
17(1): 24
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC5294765/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC5294765</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28166784" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 28166784</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>- No relevant outcomes</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
<i>Study investigates self management but only aimed at secondary prevention rather than stroke rehabilitation</i>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>- study protocol</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Towfighi, A., Cheng, E. M., Hill, V. A.
|
|
et al. (2020) Results of a Pilot Trial of a Lifestyle Intervention for Stroke Survivors: Healthy Eating and Lifestyle after Stroke. Journal of Stroke & Cerebrovascular Diseases
|
|
29(12): 105323
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33002791" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 33002791</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
van Mastrigt, G. A. P. G., van Eeden, M., van Heugten, C. M.
|
|
et al. (2019) A trial-based economic evaluation of the Restore4Stroke self-management intervention compared to an education based intervention for stroke patients and their partners. BMC health services research
|
|
20: 294 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC7140323/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC7140323</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32268896" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 32268896</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Secondary publication of an included study that does not provide any additional relevant information <i>Economic information that may be relevant in the health economic portion of the review</i></td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Visser, M. M., Heijenbrok-Kal, M. H., Van’t Spijker, A.
|
|
et al. (2016) Problem-Solving Therapy During Outpatient Stroke Rehabilitation Improves Coping and Health-Related Quality of Life: Randomized Controlled Trial. Stroke
|
|
47(1): 135–42
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26585393" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 26585393</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
<p>- No relevant outcomes</p>
|
|
<p>
|
|
<i>Study reports outcomes for all participants together using a mixed model analysis instead of providing a comparison</i>
|
|
</p>
|
|
<p>- Data not reported in an extractable format or a format that can be analysed</p>
|
|
</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Vluggen, Tpmm, van Haastregt, J. C. M., Tan, F. E.
|
|
et al. (2021) Effectiveness of an integrated multidisciplinary geriatric rehabilitation programme for older persons with stroke: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. BMC Geriatrics
|
|
21(1): 134
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC7903755/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC7903755</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33622269" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 33622269</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Wan, L. H., Zhang, X. P., Mo, M. M.
|
|
et al. (2016) Effectiveness of Goal-Setting Telephone Follow-Up on Health Behaviors of Patients with Ischemic Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Journal of Stroke & Cerebrovascular Diseases
|
|
25(9): 2259–70
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27371106" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 27371106</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- No relevant outcomes</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Wang, S., Li, Y., Tian, J.
|
|
et al. (2020) A randomized controlled trial of brain and heart health manager-led mHealth secondary stroke prevention. Cardiovascular Diagnosis & Therapy
|
|
10(5): 1192–1199
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC7666930/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC7666930</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33224743" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 33224743</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- No relevant outcomes</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Wichowicz, H. M., Puchalska, L., Rybak-Korneluk, A. M.
|
|
et al. (2017) Application of Solution-Focused Brief Therapy (SFBT) in individuals after stroke. Brain Injury
|
|
31(11): 1507–1512
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28696135" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 28696135</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Data not reported in an extractable format or a format that can be analysed</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Willeit, P., Toell, T., Boehme, C.
|
|
et al. (2020) STROKE-CARD care to prevent cardiovascular events and improve quality of life after acute ischaemic stroke or TIA: A randomised clinical trial. EClinicalMedicine
|
|
25: 100476 [<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC7486330/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC7486330</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32954239" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 32954239</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Wolf, T. J., Baum, C. M., Lee, D.
|
|
et al. (2016) The Development of the Improving Participation after Stroke Self-Management Program (IPASS): An Exploratory Randomized Clinical Study. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation
|
|
23(4): 284–92
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC4929017/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC4929017</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27077987" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 27077987</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Data not reported in an extractable format or a format that can be analysed</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Wolf, T. J., Spiers, M. J., Doherty, M.
|
|
et al. (2017) The effect of self-management education following mild stroke: an exploratory randomized controlled trial. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation
|
|
24(5): 345–352
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC5404962/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC5404962</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28191861" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 28191861</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Data not reported in an extractable format or a format that can be analysed</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Wray, F.; Clarke, D.; Forster, A. (2018) Post-stroke self-management interventions: a systematic review of effectiveness and investigation of the inclusion of stroke survivors with aphasia. Disability & Rehabilitation
|
|
40(11): 1237–1251
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28271913" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 28271913</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- More recent systematic review included that covers the same topic</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Xing, L. and Wei, J. (2021) The effect of self-management on the knowledge, beliefs, behavior and subjective well-being in stroke patients during the rehabilitation phase. American Journal of Translational Research
|
|
13(7): 8337–8343
|
|
[<a href="/pmc/articles/PMC8340169/" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pmc">PMC free article<span class="bk_prnt">: PMC8340169</span></a>] [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34377325" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 34377325</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study design not relevant to this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Yacoby, A., Zeilig, G., Weingarden, H.
|
|
et al. (2019) Feasibility of, Adherence to, and Satisfaction With Video Game Versus Traditional Self-Training of the Upper Extremity in People With Chronic Stroke: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial. American Journal of Occupational Therapy
|
|
73(1): 7301205080p1-7301205080p14 [<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30839263" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 30839263</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Comparator in study does not match that specified in this review protocol</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Zhang, Z. (2016) A randomized controlled multicenter study of behavior interventions on prognosis of patients with ischemic stroke.
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Full text paper not available</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Zhou, B., Zhang, J., Zhao, Y.
|
|
et al. (2019) Caregiver-Delivered Stroke Rehabilitation in Rural China: The RECOVER Randomized Controlled Trial. Stroke
|
|
50(7): 1825–1830
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31177978" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 31177978</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Duplicate reference</td></tr><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">
|
|
Zhou, B., Zhang, J., Zhao, Y.
|
|
et al. (2019) Caregiver-Delivered Stroke Rehabilitation in Rural China. Stroke
|
|
50(7): 1825–1830
|
|
[<a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31177978" ref="pagearea=body&targetsite=entrez&targetcat=link&targettype=pubmed">PubMed<span class="bk_prnt">: 31177978</span></a>]
|
|
</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab1_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">- Study does not contain an intervention relevant to this review protocol</td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></article><article data-type="table-wrap" id="figobniceng236er13appjtab2"><div id="niceng236er13.appj.tab2" class="table"><h3><span class="label">Table 13</span><span class="title">Studies excluded from the health economic review</span></h3><p class="large-table-link" style="display:none"><span class="right"><a href="/books/NBK602818/table/niceng236er13.appj.tab2/?report=objectonly" target="object">View in own window</a></span></p><div class="large_tbl" id="__niceng236er13.appj.tab2_lrgtbl__"><table><thead><tr><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Reference</th><th id="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">Reason for exclusion</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab2_1_1_1_1" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;">None</td><td headers="hd_h_niceng236er13.appj.tab2_1_1_1_2" rowspan="1" colspan="1" style="text-align:left;vertical-align:top;"></td></tr></tbody></table></div></div></article></div><div id="jr-scripts"><script src="/corehtml/pmc/jatsreader/ptpmc_3.22/js/libs.min.js"> </script><script src="/corehtml/pmc/jatsreader/ptpmc_3.22/js/jr.min.js"> </script></div></div>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- Book content -->
|
|
|
|
<script type="text/javascript" src="/portal/portal3rc.fcgi/rlib/js/InstrumentNCBIBaseJS/InstrumentPageStarterJS.js"> </script>
|
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- CE8B5AF87C7FFCB1_0191SID /projects/books/PBooks@9.11 portal107 v4.1.r689238 Tue, Oct 22 2024 16:10:51 -->
|
|
<span id="portal-csrf-token" style="display:none" data-token="CE8B5AF87C7FFCB1_0191SID"></span>
|
|
|
|
<script type="text/javascript" src="//static.pubmed.gov/portal/portal3rc.fcgi/4216699/js/3968615.js" snapshot="books"></script></body>
|
|
</html>
|