Legg Lynn A, Lewis Sharon R, Schofield-Robinson Oliver J, Drummond Avril, Langhorne Peter
NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley, UK, PA2 9PN.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 19;7(7):CD003585. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003585.pub3.
A stroke occurs when the blood supply to part of the brain is cut off. Activities of daily living (ADL) are daily home-based activities that people carry out to maintain health and well-being. ADLs include the ability to: eat and drink unassisted, move, go to the toilet, carry out personal hygiene tasks, dress unassisted, and groom. Stroke causes impairment-related functional limitations that may result in difficulties participating in ADLs independent of supervision, direction, or physical assistance.For adults with stroke, the goal of occupational therapy is to improve their ability to carry out activities of daily living. Strategies used by occupational therapists include assessment, treatment, adaptive techniques, assistive technology, and environmental adaptations. This is an update of the Cochrane review first published in 2006.
To assess the effects of occupational therapy interventions on the functional ability of adults with stroke in the domain of activities of daily living, compared with no intervention or standard care/practice.
For this update, we searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 30 January 2017), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, January 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to 5 January 2017), Embase (1974 to 5 January 2017), CINAHL (1937 to January 2017), PsycINFO (1806 to 2 November 2016), AMED (1985 to 1 November 2016), and Web of Science (1900 to 6 January 2017). We also searched grey literature and clinical trials registers.
We identified randomised controlled trials of an occupational therapy intervention (compared with no intervention or standard care/practice) where people with stroke practiced activities of daily living, or where performance in activities of daily living was the focus of the occupational therapy intervention.
Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data for prespecified outcomes. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants who had deteriorated or were dependent in personal activities of daily living and performance in activities of daily living at the end of follow-up.
We included nine studies with 994 participants in this update. Occupational therapy targeted towards activities of daily living after stroke increased performance scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.31, P = 0.02; 7 studies; 749 participants; low-quality evidence) and reduced the risk of poor outcome (death, deterioration or dependency in personal activities of daily living) (odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96; P = 0.03; 5 studies; 771 participants; low-quality evidence). We also found that those who received occupational therapy were more independent in extended activities of daily living (OR 0.22 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.37); P = 0.005; 5 studies; 665 participants; low-quality evidence). Occupational therapy did not influence mortality (OR: 1.02 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.61); P = 0.93; 8 studies; 950 participants), or reduce the combined odds of death and institutionalisation (OR 0.89 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.32); P = 0.55; 4 studies; 671 participants), or death and dependency (OR 0.89 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.23); P = 0.47; 4 trials; 659 participants). Occupational therapy did not improve mood or distress scores (OR 0.08 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.26); P = 0.35; 4 studies; 519 participants; low-quality evidence). There were insufficient data to determine the effects of occupational therapy on health-related quality of life. We found no studies of consenting carers prior to study participation and therefore there were no carer-related outcomes in our review. There were insufficient data to determine participants' and carers' satisfaction with services.Using GRADE, the quality of evidence was low. The major limitation was the number of studies at unclear risk of selection bias and an inevitable high risk of performance and detection bias, as both participants and occupational therapists could not be blinded to the intervention. In addition, there was a sparseness of data for our outcomes of interest and we downgraded the quality of our evidence for these reasons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-quality evidence that occupational therapy targeted towards activities of daily living after stroke can improve performance in activities of daily living and reduce the risk of deterioration in these abilities. Because the included studies had methodological flaws, this research does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect of occupational therapy for adults with stroke.
当大脑部分区域的血液供应被切断时,就会发生中风。日常生活活动(ADL)是人们在家中进行的日常活动,以维持健康和幸福。ADL包括以下能力:独立进食和饮水、移动、上厕所、进行个人卫生任务、独立穿衣和修饰。中风会导致与损伤相关的功能限制,这可能导致在没有监督、指导或身体协助的情况下参与ADL出现困难。对于中风成人患者,职业治疗的目标是提高他们进行日常生活活动的能力。职业治疗师使用的策略包括评估、治疗、适应性技术、辅助技术和环境适应。这是2006年首次发表的Cochrane综述的更新版。
评估与无干预或标准护理/实践相比,职业治疗干预对中风成人患者在日常生活活动领域功能能力的影响。
对于本次更新,我们检索了Cochrane中风小组试验注册库(最后检索时间为2017年1月30日)、Cochrane对照试验注册库(《Cochrane图书馆》,2017年1月)、MEDLINE(1946年至2017年1月5日)、Embase(1974年至2017年1月5日)、CINAHL(1937年至2017年1月)、PsycINFO(1806年至2016年11月2日)、AMED(1985年至2016年11月1日)和科学引文索引(1900年至2017年1月6日)。我们还检索了灰色文献和临床试验注册库。
我们确定了职业治疗干预的随机对照试验(与无干预或标准护理/实践相比),其中中风患者进行日常生活活动,或日常生活活动表现是职业治疗干预的重点。
两位综述作者独立选择试验、评估偏倚风险,并提取预定结局的数据。主要结局是在随访结束时日常生活活动恶化或依赖个人日常生活活动以及日常生活活动表现的参与者比例。
本次更新纳入了9项研究,共994名参与者。针对中风后日常生活活动的职业治疗提高了表现得分(标准化均数差(SMD)0.17,95%置信区间(CI)0.03至0.31,P = 0.02;7项研究;749名参与者;低质量证据),并降低了不良结局(死亡、恶化或个人日常生活活动依赖)的风险(比值比(OR)0.71,9%置信区间0.52至0.96;P = 0.03;5项研究;771名参与者;低质量证据)。我们还发现,接受职业治疗的患者在扩展日常生活活动中更独立(OR 0.22(95%CI 0.07至0.37);P = 0.00;5项研究;)。职业治疗不影响死亡率(OR:1.02(95%CI 0.65至1.61);P = 0.93;8项研究;950名参与者),或降低死亡和机构化的综合比值(OR 0.89(95%CI 0.60至1.32);P = 0.55;4项研究;671名参与者),或死亡和依赖(OR 0.89(95%CI 0.64至1.23);P = 0.47;4项试验;659名参与者)。职业治疗未改善情绪或痛苦得分(OR 0.08(95%CI -0.09至0.26);P = 0.35;4项研究;519名参与者;低质量证据)。没有足够的数据来确定职业治疗对健康相关生活质量的影响。我们发现没有关于研究参与前同意参与的照顾者的研究,因此我们的综述中没有与照顾者相关的结局。没有足够的数据来确定参与者和照顾者对服务的满意度。使用GRADE评估,证据质量低。主要限制是存在选择偏倚风险不明确的研究数量,以及不可避免的高表现和检测偏倚风险,因为参与者和职业治疗师都无法对干预进行盲法。此外,我们感兴趣的结局数据稀少,因此我们降低了这些证据的质量。
我们发现低质量证据表明,针对中风后日常生活活动的职业治疗可以提高日常生活活动表现,并降低这些能力恶化的风险。由于纳入的研究存在方法学缺陷,本研究并未提供职业治疗对中风成人患者可能效果的可靠指标。