Fryer Caroline E, Luker Julie A, McDonnell Michelle N, Hillier Susan L
International Centre for Allied Health Evidence, Sansom Institute for Health Research, University of South Australia (City East), North Tce, Adelaide, SA, Australia, 5000.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 22;2016(8):CD010442. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010442.pub2.
Stroke results from an acute lack of blood supply to the brain and becomes a chronic health condition for millions of survivors around the world. Self management can offer stroke survivors a pathway to promote their recovery. Self management programmes for people with stroke can include specific education about the stroke and likely effects but essentially, also focusses on skills training to encourage people to take an active part in their management. Such skills training can include problem-solving, goal-setting, decision-making, and coping skills.
To assess the effects of self management interventions on the quality of life of adults with stroke who are living in the community, compared with inactive or active (usual care) control interventions.
We searched the following databases from inception to April 2016: the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, OTSeeker, OT Search, PEDro, REHABDATA, and DARE. We also searched the following trial registries: ClinicalTrials.gov, Stroke Trials Registry, Current Controlled Trials, World Health Organization, and Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.
We included randomised controlled trials of adults with stroke living in the community who received self management interventions. These interventions included more than one component of self management or targeted more than a single domain of change, or both. Interventions were compared with either an inactive control (waiting list or usual care) or active control (alternate intervention such as education only). Measured outcomes included changes in quality of life, self efficacy, activity or participation levels, impairments, health service usage, health behaviours (such as medication adherence or lifestyle behaviours), cost, participant satisfaction, or adverse events.
Two review authors independently extracted prespecified data from all included studies and assessed trial quality and risk of bias. We performed meta-analyses where possible to pool results.
We included 14 trials with 1863 participants. Evidence from six studies showed that self management programmes improved quality of life in people with stroke (standardised mean difference (SMD) random effects 0.34, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.62, P = 0.02; moderate quality evidence) and improved self efficacy (SMD, random effects 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.61, P = 0.03; low quality evidence) compared with usual care. Individual studies reported benefits for health-related behaviours such as reduced use of health services, smoking, and alcohol intake, as well as improved diet and attitude. However, there was no superior effect for such programmes in the domains of locus of control, activities of daily living, medication adherence, participation, or mood. Statistical heterogeneity was mostly low; however, there was much variation in the types and delivery of programmes. Risk of bias was relatively low for complex intervention clinical trials where participants and personnel could not be blinded.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence indicates that self management programmes may benefit people with stroke who are living in the community. The benefits of such programmes lie in improved quality of life and self efficacy. These are all well-recognised goals for people after stroke. There is evidence for many modes of delivery and examples of tailoring content to the target group. Leaders were usually professionals but peers (stroke survivors and carers) were also reported - the commonality is being trained and expert in stroke and its consequences. It would be beneficial for further research to be focused on identifying key features of effective self management programmes and assessing their cost-effectiveness.
中风是由于大脑急性供血不足导致的,对于全球数百万幸存者而言,它成为了一种慢性健康问题。自我管理可为中风幸存者提供促进康复的途径。针对中风患者的自我管理项目可包括有关中风及其可能影响的特定教育,但本质上也侧重于技能培训,以鼓励人们积极参与自身管理。此类技能培训可包括解决问题、设定目标、决策和应对技能。
与无干预或积极(常规护理)对照干预相比,评估自我管理干预对社区成年中风患者生活质量的影响。
我们检索了以下数据库自创建至2016年4月的数据:Cochrane中风组试验注册库、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、医学期刊数据库(MEDLINE)、荷兰医学文摘数据库(EMBASE)、护理学与健康领域数据库(CINAHL)、心理学文摘数据库(PsycINFO)、Scopus数据库、科学引文索引数据库(Web of Science)、职业疗法研究数据库(OTSeeker)、职业疗法搜索数据库(OT Search)、循证医学数据库(PEDro)、康复数据库(REHABDATA)和卫生保健证据数据库(DARE)。我们还检索了以下试验注册库:美国国立医学图书馆临床试验数据库(ClinicalTrials.gov)、中风试验注册库、当前对照试验库、世界卫生组织和澳大利亚新西兰临床试验注册库。
我们纳入了针对社区成年中风患者进行自我管理干预的随机对照试验。这些干预包括自我管理的多个组成部分或针对多个单一变化领域,或两者兼而有之。干预措施与无干预对照(等待名单或常规护理)或积极对照(如仅教育等替代干预)进行比较。测量的结果包括生活质量、自我效能、活动或参与水平、损伤、卫生服务使用、健康行为(如药物依从性或生活方式行为)、成本、参与者满意度或不良事件的变化。
两位综述作者独立从所有纳入研究中提取预先设定的数据,并评估试验质量和偏倚风险。我们尽可能进行荟萃分析以汇总结果。
我们纳入了14项试验,共1863名参与者。六项研究的证据表明,与常规护理相比,自我管理项目改善了中风患者的生活质量(随机效应标准化均数差(SMD)为0.34,95%置信区间(CI)为0.05至0.62,P = 0.02;中等质量证据),并提高了自我效能(随机效应SMD为0.33,95%CI为0.04至0.61,P = 0.03;低质量证据)。个别研究报告了对健康相关行为的益处,如减少卫生服务使用、吸烟和饮酒,以及改善饮食和态度。然而,此类项目在控制点、日常生活活动、药物依从性、参与或情绪等领域没有更显著的效果。统计异质性大多较低;然而,项目的类型和实施方式存在很大差异。对于参与者和工作人员无法设盲的复杂干预临床试验,偏倚风险相对较低。
目前的证据表明,自我管理项目可能使社区中风患者受益。此类项目的益处在于提高生活质量和自我效能。这些都是中风患者公认的目标。有证据表明存在多种实施方式,并且有针对目标群体量身定制内容的实例。领导者通常是专业人员,但也有同伴(中风幸存者和护理人员)的参与——共同点是接受过中风及其后果方面的培训且是专家。进一步的研究聚焦于确定有效自我管理项目的关键特征并评估其成本效益将是有益的。