早期职业康复与常规护理支持中风后重返工作岗位的有效性:一项实用的、平行臂多中心、随机对照试验。

IF 6.3 2区 医学 Q1 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY International Journal of Stroke Pub Date : 2024-11-29 DOI:10.1177/17474930241306693
Kathryn Alice Radford, Alexandra Wright-Hughes, Ellen Thompson, David Clarke, Julie Phillips, Jain Holmes, Kathryn E Powers, Diane Trusson, Kristelle Craven, Caroline L Watkins, Audrey Bowen, Christopher J McKevitt, Judith Stevens, John D Murray, Rory J O'Connor, Sarah Pyne, Helen Risebro, Rory Cameron, Tracey H Sach, Florence Day, Amanda Farrin
{"title":"早期职业康复与常规护理支持中风后重返工作岗位的有效性:一项实用的、平行臂多中心、随机对照试验。","authors":"Kathryn Alice Radford, Alexandra Wright-Hughes, Ellen Thompson, David Clarke, Julie Phillips, Jain Holmes, Kathryn E Powers, Diane Trusson, Kristelle Craven, Caroline L Watkins, Audrey Bowen, Christopher J McKevitt, Judith Stevens, John D Murray, Rory J O'Connor, Sarah Pyne, Helen Risebro, Rory Cameron, Tracey H Sach, Florence Day, Amanda Farrin","doi":"10.1177/17474930241306693","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Return-to-work is a major goal achieved by fewer than 50% stroke survivors. Evidence on how to support return-to-work is lacking.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of Early Stroke Specialist Vocational Rehabilitation (ESSVR) plus usual care (UC) (i.e. usual NHS rehabilitation) versus UC alone for helping people return-to-work after stroke.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This pragmatic, multicentre, individually randomised controlled trial with embedded economic and process evaluations, compared ESSVR with UC in 21 NHS stroke services across England and Wales. Eligible participants were aged ≥18 years, in work at stroke onset, hospitalised with new stroke and within 12-weeks of stroke. People not intending to return-to-work were excluded. Participants were randomised (5:4) to individually-tailored ESSVR delivered by stroke-specialist occupational-therapists for up to 12-months or usual National Health Service rehabilitation. Primary outcome was self-reported return-to-work for ≥2 hours per week at 12-months. Primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between 1st June-2018, and 7th March-2022, 583 participants (mean age 54.1 years [SD 11.0], 69% male) were randomised to ESSVR (n=324) or UC (n=259). Primary outcome data were available for 454(77.9%) participants. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants returned-to-work at 12-months (165/257[64.2%] ESSVR vs 117/197[59.4%] UC; adjusted odds ratio 1.12 [95%CI 0.8 to 1.87],p=0.3582). There was some indication that older participants and those with more post-stroke impairment were more likely to benefit from ESSVR (interaction p=0.0239 and p=0.0959 respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a stroke VR intervention ever conducted. We found no evidence that ESSVR conferred any benefits over UC in improving return-to-work rates 12-months post-stroke. Return-to-work (for at least 2 hours per week) rates were higher than in previous studies (64.2% ESSVR versus 59.4% UC) at 12-months and more than double that observed in our feasibility trial (26%). Interpretation of findings was limited by a predominantly mild-moderate sample of participants and the Covid-19 pandemic. The pandemic impacted the trial, ESSVR and UC delivery, altering the work environment and employer behaviour. These changes influenced our primary outcome and the meaning of work in people's lives; all pivotal to the context of ESSVR delivery and its mechanisms of action.</p><p><strong>Data access: </strong>Data available on reasonable request.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>ISRCTN12464275.</p>","PeriodicalId":14442,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Stroke","volume":" ","pages":"17474930241306693"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of early vocational rehabilitation versus usual care to support RETurn to work After stroKE: a pragmatic, parallel arm multi-centre, randomised-controlled trial.\",\"authors\":\"Kathryn Alice Radford, Alexandra Wright-Hughes, Ellen Thompson, David Clarke, Julie Phillips, Jain Holmes, Kathryn E Powers, Diane Trusson, Kristelle Craven, Caroline L Watkins, Audrey Bowen, Christopher J McKevitt, Judith Stevens, John D Murray, Rory J O'Connor, Sarah Pyne, Helen Risebro, Rory Cameron, Tracey H Sach, Florence Day, Amanda Farrin\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17474930241306693\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Return-to-work is a major goal achieved by fewer than 50% stroke survivors. Evidence on how to support return-to-work is lacking.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of Early Stroke Specialist Vocational Rehabilitation (ESSVR) plus usual care (UC) (i.e. usual NHS rehabilitation) versus UC alone for helping people return-to-work after stroke.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This pragmatic, multicentre, individually randomised controlled trial with embedded economic and process evaluations, compared ESSVR with UC in 21 NHS stroke services across England and Wales. Eligible participants were aged ≥18 years, in work at stroke onset, hospitalised with new stroke and within 12-weeks of stroke. People not intending to return-to-work were excluded. Participants were randomised (5:4) to individually-tailored ESSVR delivered by stroke-specialist occupational-therapists for up to 12-months or usual National Health Service rehabilitation. Primary outcome was self-reported return-to-work for ≥2 hours per week at 12-months. Primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Between 1st June-2018, and 7th March-2022, 583 participants (mean age 54.1 years [SD 11.0], 69% male) were randomised to ESSVR (n=324) or UC (n=259). Primary outcome data were available for 454(77.9%) participants. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants returned-to-work at 12-months (165/257[64.2%] ESSVR vs 117/197[59.4%] UC; adjusted odds ratio 1.12 [95%CI 0.8 to 1.87],p=0.3582). There was some indication that older participants and those with more post-stroke impairment were more likely to benefit from ESSVR (interaction p=0.0239 and p=0.0959 respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a stroke VR intervention ever conducted. We found no evidence that ESSVR conferred any benefits over UC in improving return-to-work rates 12-months post-stroke. Return-to-work (for at least 2 hours per week) rates were higher than in previous studies (64.2% ESSVR versus 59.4% UC) at 12-months and more than double that observed in our feasibility trial (26%). Interpretation of findings was limited by a predominantly mild-moderate sample of participants and the Covid-19 pandemic. The pandemic impacted the trial, ESSVR and UC delivery, altering the work environment and employer behaviour. These changes influenced our primary outcome and the meaning of work in people's lives; all pivotal to the context of ESSVR delivery and its mechanisms of action.</p><p><strong>Data access: </strong>Data available on reasonable request.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>ISRCTN12464275.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14442,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Stroke\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"17474930241306693\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Stroke\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17474930241306693\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Stroke","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17474930241306693","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:只有不到50%的中风幸存者实现了重返工作岗位的主要目标。缺乏关于如何支持重返工作岗位的证据。目的:评估早期卒中专科职业康复(ESSVR)加常规护理(UC)(即常规NHS康复)与单独UC在帮助卒中后患者重返工作岗位方面的临床效果。方法:这项实用的、多中心的、单独随机对照试验,采用嵌入的经济和过程评估,在英格兰和威尔士的21个NHS卒中服务中比较了ESSVR和UC。符合条件的参与者年龄≥18岁,卒中发作时在工作,新发卒中住院,卒中后12周内。不打算重返工作岗位的人被排除在外。参与者被随机(5:4)分配到由中风专家职业治疗师提供的个性化ESSVR,为期12个月或通常的国民健康服务康复。主要终点是自我报告在12个月时每周恢复工作≥2小时。在意向治疗人群中进行了初步和安全性分析。结果:在2018年6月1日至2022年3月7日期间,583名参与者(平均年龄54.1岁[SD 11.0], 69%为男性)被随机分为ESSVR (n=324)或UC (n=259)。454名(77.9%)参与者获得了主要结局数据。意向治疗分析显示,12个月后重返工作岗位的参与者比例没有差异(165/257[64.2%]ESSVR vs 117/197[59.4%] UC;校正优势比1.12 [95%CI 0.8 ~ 1.87],p=0.3582)。有一些迹象表明,年龄较大的参与者和卒中后损伤较多的参与者更有可能从ESSVR中受益(相互作用p=0.0239和p=0.0959分别)。结论:据我们所知,这是迄今为止进行的最大的脑卒中VR干预试验。我们没有发现任何证据表明ESSVR在提高中风后12个月的重返工作率方面比UC有任何好处。12个月后重返工作岗位(每周至少2小时)的比率高于之前的研究(ESSVR为64.2%,UC为59.4%),是我们可行性试验(26%)的两倍多。对研究结果的解释受到以轻度和中度为主的参与者样本和Covid-19大流行的限制。疫情影响了试验、ESSVR和UC的交付,改变了工作环境和雇主行为。这些变化影响了我们的主要成果和工作在人们生活中的意义;所有这些都是ESSVR交付及其作用机制的关键。数据访问:根据合理要求提供的数据。注册:ISRCTN12464275。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Effectiveness of early vocational rehabilitation versus usual care to support RETurn to work After stroKE: a pragmatic, parallel arm multi-centre, randomised-controlled trial.

Background: Return-to-work is a major goal achieved by fewer than 50% stroke survivors. Evidence on how to support return-to-work is lacking.

Aims: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of Early Stroke Specialist Vocational Rehabilitation (ESSVR) plus usual care (UC) (i.e. usual NHS rehabilitation) versus UC alone for helping people return-to-work after stroke.

Methods: This pragmatic, multicentre, individually randomised controlled trial with embedded economic and process evaluations, compared ESSVR with UC in 21 NHS stroke services across England and Wales. Eligible participants were aged ≥18 years, in work at stroke onset, hospitalised with new stroke and within 12-weeks of stroke. People not intending to return-to-work were excluded. Participants were randomised (5:4) to individually-tailored ESSVR delivered by stroke-specialist occupational-therapists for up to 12-months or usual National Health Service rehabilitation. Primary outcome was self-reported return-to-work for ≥2 hours per week at 12-months. Primary and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population.

Results: Between 1st June-2018, and 7th March-2022, 583 participants (mean age 54.1 years [SD 11.0], 69% male) were randomised to ESSVR (n=324) or UC (n=259). Primary outcome data were available for 454(77.9%) participants. Intention-to-treat analysis showed no evidence of a difference in the proportion of participants returned-to-work at 12-months (165/257[64.2%] ESSVR vs 117/197[59.4%] UC; adjusted odds ratio 1.12 [95%CI 0.8 to 1.87],p=0.3582). There was some indication that older participants and those with more post-stroke impairment were more likely to benefit from ESSVR (interaction p=0.0239 and p=0.0959 respectively).

Conclusions: To our knowledge, this is the largest trial of a stroke VR intervention ever conducted. We found no evidence that ESSVR conferred any benefits over UC in improving return-to-work rates 12-months post-stroke. Return-to-work (for at least 2 hours per week) rates were higher than in previous studies (64.2% ESSVR versus 59.4% UC) at 12-months and more than double that observed in our feasibility trial (26%). Interpretation of findings was limited by a predominantly mild-moderate sample of participants and the Covid-19 pandemic. The pandemic impacted the trial, ESSVR and UC delivery, altering the work environment and employer behaviour. These changes influenced our primary outcome and the meaning of work in people's lives; all pivotal to the context of ESSVR delivery and its mechanisms of action.

Data access: Data available on reasonable request.

Registration: ISRCTN12464275.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Stroke
International Journal of Stroke 医学-外周血管病
CiteScore
13.90
自引率
6.00%
发文量
132
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Stroke is a welcome addition to the international stroke journal landscape in that it concentrates on the clinical aspects of stroke with basic science contributions in areas of clinical interest. Reviews of current topics are broadly based to encompass not only recent advances of global interest but also those which may be more important in certain regions and the journal regularly features items of news interest from all parts of the world. To facilitate the international nature of the journal, our Associate Editors from Europe, Asia, North America and South America coordinate segments of the journal.
期刊最新文献
Collaterals and outcomes after endovascular treatment in acute large vessel occlusion: Disparity by stroke etiologies. Prevalence of carotid plaques with high-risk features in embolic stroke of undetermined source: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Comparative Outcomes of Arteriovenous Malformations treatment in Eloquent versus Non-Eloquent Brain: A Multicenter Study with Propensity-Score Weighting. Andexanet alfa in patients with factor Xa inhibitor-associated intracranial hemorrhage: The prospective observational multicenter ASTRO-DE study. Predicting Stroke in Patients with Infective Endocarditis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Risk Factors.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1