Search

Abstract Background Early mobilisation (> 24 h post-stroke) is recommended for people with stroke. However, there is a paucity of evidence about how to implement early mobilisation for people who have had a severe stroke. Prolonged standing and task-specific training (sit-to-stand repetitions) have separately been evaluated in the literature; however, these functionally linked tasks have not been evaluated in combination for people with severe sub-acute stroke. Methods The objective was to determine the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a functional standing frame programme compared with usual physiotherapy for people with severe sub-acute stroke. An assessor-blinded feasibility RCT with nested qualitative component (interviews and focus group) and process evaluation was adopted. Participants were aged ≥ 18 years with new diagnosis of severe sub-acute stroke (modified Rankin Scale (mRS) 4/5) from four Stroke Rehabilitation Units across South West England. Participants were randomised to receive either: (1) functional standing frame programme (30 min. standing plus sit-to-stand repetitions) plus 15 min of usual physiotherapy daily (intervention); (2) usual physiotherapy (45 min) daily (control). Both programmes were protocolised to be undertaken a minimum of five sessions per week for 3 weeks. Feasibility indicators included process, resource, management, and safety. Adherence, fidelity, and acceptability of the trial and intervention were evaluated using data recorded by therapists, observation of intervention and control sessions, interviews and one focus group. Patient measures of motor impairment, activities/participation, and quality of life were carried out by blinded assessors at baseline, 3, 15, 29, and 55 weeks post-randomisation. Results Forty-five participants (51–96 years; 42% male, mRS 4 = 80% 5 = 20%) were randomised (n = 22 to intervention). Twenty-seven (60%) participants were followed-up at all time points. Twelve participants (27%) died during the trial; no deaths were related to the trial. Adherence to the minimum number of sessions was low: none of the participants completed all 21 sessions, and only 8 participants (18%) across both groups completed ≥ 15 sessions, over the 3 weeks; 39% intervention; 51% control sessions were completed; mean session duration 39 min (SD 19) control, 37 min intervention (SD 11). Intervention group: mean standing time 13 min (SD 9); mean sit-to-stand repetitions/session 5 (SD 4). Interviews were conducted with 10 participants, four relatives and six physiotherapists. Five physiotherapists attended a focus group. Conclusions The majority of progression criteria for this feasibility trial were met. However, adherence to the interventions was unacceptably low. This aspect of the trial design needs to be addressed prior to moving to a definitive RCT of this standing frame intervention in people with severe sub-acute stroke. Solutions have been identified to address these concerns. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN15412695 . Registration 19 December 2016.

Abstract Background Previous research shows that existing asthma quality of life questionnaires fail to measure the burden of oral corticosteroids that can be used to treat severe asthma, and are therefore not fit for purpose for severe asthma according to the USA’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) criteria for content validity. Patient input and documentation of that input is key to achieving content validity according to FDA guidelines. This paper describes the process of constructing a new questionnaire to measure the burden of asthma symptoms and burden of treatment in severe asthma, using criteria specified by the FDA. Methods A draft severe asthma questionnaire (SAQ) was constructed using qualitative input from severe asthma patients who took part in an earlier study. The aim of this study was to improve that draft questionnaire using a further group of patients. In four iterative focus groups, 16 people with severe asthma completed the draft questionnaire, discussed the wording and structure and suggested changes that were incorporated into the final version. Results The original intention to ask patients to identify whether problems were caused by asthma symptoms or side effects of medication was abandoned as the attribution of cause was found to be difficult and inconsistent. The recall period of 2 weeks was acceptable but fails to reflect the patients’ desire to express the variability of severe asthma. Patients suggested improvements to the wording of the draft questionnaire, including splitting some items in two, combining two items in one, and changes to some of the words in individual items and the response scale. Conclusions The final version of the questionnaire was substantially different from one constructed using only qualitative reports from patients about the quality of life deficits of severe asthma. Patients make a valuable contribution to the questionnaire if they are asked to comment and improve an initial draft and where patients are treated as partners in the process of questionnaire construction, rather than only as a source of information to experts who construct the questionnaire.