Wolfe C D, Tilling K, Rudd A G
Division of Public Health Sciences, Guy's and St Thomas' Hospital, London, UK.
Clin Rehabil. 2000 Dec;14(6):563-9. doi: 10.1191/0269215500cr362oa.
To assess the effectiveness of community-based rehabilitation for stroke patients who were not admitted to hospital in South London.
Randomized controlled trial.
Patients' homes in South London.
Stroke patients not admitted to hospital after a stroke.
Rehabilitation at home by rehabilitation team for up to three months or usual care.
The primary outcome measure was the Barthel score. Secondary measures included the Motricity Index, Rivermead ADL, Hospital Anxiety and Depression score and Nottingham Health Profile.
Forty-three patients who remained at home were randomized to rehabilitation team (23) or 'usual' care (20). The mean number of physiotherapy sessions was three (range 1-14) for the rehabilitation team group and two for the usual care group. Patients (with a deficit) in the rehabilitation arm of the trial were more likely to receive occupational, physical and speech therapy than those in the control arm (p = 0.03, 0.01 and 0.008, respectively). For those patients actually receiving therapy, there was no evidence that the amount received differed between the groups. However, the number of patients in each of these comparisons was very small. The outcome for patients in the rehabilitation team arm of the trial was nonsignificantly higher (0.05 < p < 0.2) than for those in the control arm for the areas of Nottingham Health Profile, anxiety, depression, caregiver strain and the proportion of patients living at home. Based on the data observed here, a trial with approximately 150 patients in each arm would be needed to have adequate power to detect a 33% difference between intervention and control groups in these outcomes.
Community therapy support for patients not admitted to hospital is feasible but to determine whether it is cost- or clinically effective would require trials of adequate size.
评估针对伦敦南部未住院的中风患者开展的社区康复治疗的效果。
随机对照试验。
伦敦南部患者家中。
中风后未住院的中风患者。
由康复团队在家中进行长达三个月的康复治疗或常规护理。
主要结局指标为巴氏指数。次要指标包括运动功能指数、里弗米德日常生活活动能力量表、医院焦虑抑郁量表评分以及诺丁汉健康量表。
43名居家患者被随机分为康复治疗组(23例)和“常规”护理组(20例)。康复治疗组的平均物理治疗次数为3次(范围1 - 14次),常规护理组为2次。试验康复组中有功能缺陷的患者比对照组患者更有可能接受职业治疗、物理治疗和言语治疗(p值分别为0.03、0.01和0.008)。对于实际接受治疗的患者,没有证据表明两组接受的治疗量存在差异。然而,这些比较中的每组患者数量都非常少。在诺丁汉健康量表、焦虑、抑郁、照料者负担以及居家患者比例等方面,试验康复组患者的结局比对照组略高,但无统计学意义(0.05 < p < 0.2)。基于此处观察到的数据,每组约需150名患者进行试验,才有足够的检验效能来检测干预组和对照组在这些结局方面33%的差异。
为未住院患者提供社区治疗支持是可行的,但要确定其是否具有成本效益或临床疗效,需要进行足够规模的试验。