Basalt Rehabilitation Centre, The Hague and Leiden, Department of Innovation, Quality + Research, Haag, The Netherlands.
J Rehabil Med. 2021 Mar 5;53(3):jrm00161. doi: 10.2340/16501977-2785.
To compare the effect on disability and quality of life, of conventional rehabilitation (control group) with individualized, tailored eRehabilitation intervention alongside conventional rehabilitation (Fast@home; intervention group), for people with stroke.
Pre-post design. The intervention comprised cognitive (Braingymmer®) and physical (Telerevalidatie®/Physitrack®) exercises, activity-tracking (Activ8®) and psycho-education. Assessments were made at admission (T0) and after 3 (T3) and 6 months (T6). The primary outcome concerned disability (Stroke Impact Scale; SIS). Secondary outcomes were: health-related quality of life, fatigue, self-management, participation and physical activity. Changes in scores between T0-T3, T3-T6, and T0-T6 were compared by analysis of variance and linear mixed models.
The study included 153 and 165 people with stroke in the control and intervention groups, respectively. In the intervention group, 82 (50%) people received the intervention, of whom 54 (66%) used it. Between T3 and T6, the change in scores for the SIS subscales Communication (control group/intervention group -1.7/-0.3) and Physical strength (-5.7/3.3) were significantly greater in the total intervention group (all mean differences< minimally clinically important differences). No significant differences were found for other SIS subscales or secondary outcomes, or between T0-T3 and T0-T6.
eRehabilitation alongside conventional stroke rehabilitation had a small positive effect on communication and physical strength on the longer term, compared to conventional rehabilitation only.
比较常规康复（对照组）与个体化、定制的电子康复干预（Fast@home；干预组）对脑卒中患者的残疾和生活质量的影响。
采用前后设计。干预措施包括认知（Braingymmer®）和身体（Telerevalidatie®/Physitrack®）锻炼、活动跟踪（Activ8®）和心理教育。在入院时（T0）以及 3 个月（T3）和 6 个月（T6）进行评估。主要结局是残疾（中风影响量表；SIS）。次要结局是：健康相关生活质量、疲劳、自我管理、参与和身体活动。通过方差分析和线性混合模型比较 T0-T3、T3-T6 和 T0-T6 之间的评分变化。
对照组和干预组分别纳入 153 例和 165 例脑卒中患者。在干预组中，有 82 人（50%）接受了干预，其中 54 人（66%）使用了干预。在 T3 到 T6 期间，总干预组的 SIS 子量表沟通（对照组/干预组-1.7/-0.3）和体力（-5.7/3.3）的评分变化明显大于对照组（所有平均差异<最小临床重要差异）。其他 SIS 子量表或次要结局或 T0-T3 与 T0-T6 之间无显著差异。
与仅常规康复相比，常规康复联合电子康复对脑卒中患者的长期沟通和体力有较小的积极影响。
