Search

Purpose: To explore how health professionals provide information to informal carers during inpatient stroke rehabilitation and whether these practices align with adult learning principles., Methods: Informal carers and survivors of stroke who had completed inpatient rehabilitation, and health professionals working in inpatient stroke rehabilitation were interviewed. Directed qualitative content analysis was conducted using an adult learning model, to determine how closely reported practices aligned to adult learning principles., Results: 14 carers, 6 survivors of stroke and 17 health professionals participated. Carers (79% female, 57% spouse/partner) reported having incomplete knowledge during rehabilitation, lacking information about mechanisms of stroke recovery, rehabilitation processes, long-term effects of stroke, and navigating post-discharge services. Health professionals supported carers to address their learning needs related to safety of caring for stroke survivors. Carers indicated they were responsible for their own non-safety related learning. Health professionals tended not to check carers' understanding of information provided nor offer learning opportunities beyond written or verbal information., Conclusions: Health professionals consistently provide certain information to carers during inpatient rehabilitation, but adult learning principles are not routinely applied when information is provided. Fostering adult learning among informal carers may improve preparedness of carers to support stroke survivors after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation.

Introduction: People with lived experience are rarely involved in implementation science research. This study was designed to assess the feasibility of codesigning and delivering implementation strategies with people with lived experience of stroke and health professionals to improve evidence-based stroke rehabilitation., Methods: We used Experience-Based CoDesign to design and deliver strategies to implement Stroke Clinical Guideline recommendations at one Australian inpatient stroke rehabilitation unit. Workgroups were formed with health professionals and people with 6-12 months experience of living with stroke (survivors and carers). Feasibility of the codesign approach (focusing on acceptability, implementation fidelity, signal of promise) was evaluated using mixed methods, using data from interviews, observations and inpatient self-reported outcomes., Results: Of 18 people with stroke invited, eight (44%) agreed to join the lived experience workgroup. All disciplines with ≥1 full-time staff members on the stroke unit were represented on the health professional workgroup. Median workgroup attendance over 6 months was n = 8 health professionals, n = 4 survivors of stroke and n = 1 carers. Workgroup members agreed to focus on two Guideline recommendations: information provision and amount of therapy. Workgroup members indicated that the codesign approach was enjoyable and facilitated effective partnerships between health professionals and lived experience workgroup members. Both cohorts reported contributing valuable input to all stages of the project, with responsibility shifting between groups at different project stages. The codesigned strategies signalled promise for improving aspects of information provision and creating additional opportunities for therapy. We could not compare patient-reported outcomes before and after the implementation period due to high variability between the preimplementation and postimplementation patient cohorts., Conclusion: It is feasible to codesign implementation strategies in inpatient rehabilitation with people with lived experience of stroke and health professionals. More research is required to determine the effect of the codesigned strategies on patient and service outcomes., Patient or Public Contribution: People with lived experience of stroke codesigned and evaluated implementation strategies. Author F. C. has lived experience of stroke and being an inpatient at the inpatient rehabilitation service, and has provided input into analysis of the findings and preparation of this manuscript., (© 2023 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Bernhardt, a researcher at The Florey, Australia, is co-principal investigator of the Young Stroke Service project. She is an investigator on the NOVELL redesign project, which is funded by the Felton Bequest and University of Melbourne, and she is current Chair of the Executive (honorary) of the International Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Alliance. Dr Lynch is Chair, National Stroke Foundation Rehabilitation Living Guidelines Steering Group. The other author reports no conflicts.

Purpose: To identify health professionals awareness of stroke rehabilitation guidelines, and factors perceived to influence guideline use internationally., Methods: Online survey study. Open-ended responses were thematically analysed, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research., Results: Data from 833 respondents from 30 countries were included. Locally developed guidelines were available in 22 countries represented in the sample. Respondents from high-income countries were more aware of local guidelines compared with respondents from low- and middle-income countries.Local contextual factors such as management support and a culture of valuing evidence-based practice were reported to positively influence guideline use, whereas inadequate time and shortages of skilled staff inhibited the delivery of guideline-recommended care. Processes reported to improve guideline use included education, training, formation of workgroups, and audit-feedback cycles. Broader contextual factors included accountability (or lack thereof) of health professionals to deliver rehabilitation consistent with guideline recommendations., Conclusion: While many health professionals were aware of clinical guidelines, they identified multiple barriers to their implementation. Efforts should be made to raise awareness of local guidelines in low- and middle-income countries. More attention should be paid to addressing local contextual factors to improve guideline use internationally, going beyond traditional strategies focused on individual health professionals.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONSystems are required so people and organisations are held accountable to deliver evidence-based care in stroke rehabilitation.Locally developed stroke rehabilitation guidelines should be promoted to boost awareness of these guidelines in low- and middle-income countries.In all regions, strategies to influence or adapt to the local setting, are required to optimise guideline use.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to describe differences in long-term outcomes for patients discharged to inpatient rehabilitation facilities (IRFs) following stroke compared to patients discharged directly home or to residential aged care facilities (RACFs)., Materials and Methods: Cohort study. Data from the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry were linked to hospital admissions records and the national death index. Main outcomes: death and hospital readmissions up to 12 months post-admission, Health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL) 90-180 days post-admission., Results: Of 8,555 included patients (median age 75, 55% male, 83% ischemic stroke), 4,405 (51.5%) were discharged home, 3,442 (40.2%) to IRFs, and 708 (8.3%) to RACFs.No between-group differences were observed in hazard of death between patients discharged to IRFs versus home. Fewer patients discharged to IRFs were readmitted to hospital within 90, 180 or 365-days compared to patients discharged home (adjusted subhazard ratio [aSHR]:90-days 0.54, 95%CI 0.49, 0.61; aSHR:180-days 0.74, 95%CI 0.67, 0.82; aSHR:365-days 0.85, 95%CI 0.78, 0.93). Fewer patients discharged to IRFs reported problems with mobility compared to those discharged home (adjusted OR 0.54, 95%CI 0.47, 0.63), or to RACFs (aOR 0.35, 95%CI 0.25, 0.48). Overall HRQoL between 90-180 days was worse for people discharged to IRFs versus those discharged home and better than those discharged to RACFs., Conclusions: Several long-term outcomes differed significantly for patients discharged to different settings after stroke. Patients discharged to IRFs reported some better outcomes than people discharge directly home despite having markers of more severe stroke.Implications for rehabilitationPeople with mild strokes are usually discharged directly home, people with moderate severity strokes to inpatient rehabilitation, and people with very severe strokes are usually discharged to residential aged care facilities.People discharged to inpatient rehabilitation reported fewer problems with mobility and had a reduced risk of hospital readmission in the first year post-stroke compared to people discharged directly home after stroke.The median self-reported health-related quality of life for people discharged to residential aged care equated to 'worst health state imaginable'.

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a rapid shift to telehealth-delivered physical therapy services. Common impairments after stroke create unique challenges when providing rehabilitation via telehealth, particularly when it involves activities undertaken in weight-bearing or standing positions, including walking training. Our scoping review maps the evidence regarding safety, efficacy, and feasibility of remotely supervised telehealth interventions involving activities undertaken in weight-bearing or standing positions for people after stroke., Methods: Searches of relevant databases for primary research studies were conducted using keywords relating to exercise and telehealth. Studies of stroke survivors undertaking interventions involving activities in weight-bearing or standing positions, supervised in real-time via telehealth were included. Two reviewers independently appraised all studies. Data were charted by one reviewer, checked by another, and results synthesized narratively., Results: Seven studies (2 randomized trials, 1 mixed-methods, and 4 pre-post studies) were included, involving 179 participants. Some studies included stroke survivors with cognitive impairment, and 2 (29%) studies included only participants who walked independently. Adherence (reported in 3 studies) and satisfaction (reported in 4 studies) were good, and no serious adverse events (data from 4 studies) related to interventions were reported. Strategies to overcome technological barriers were used to optimize intervention safety and feasibility, along with physiological monitoring, caregiver assistance, and in-person exercise prescription. However, there is limited high-quality evidence of efficacy., Conclusions: We identified strategies used in research to date that can support current practice. However, urgent research is needed to ensure that stroke survivors are receiving evidence-based, effective services., Impact: The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated a rapid shift to telerehabilitation services for people with stroke, but there is little evidence to guide best practice. Our review provides practical guidance and strategies to overcome barriers and optimize safety and adherence for telehealth interventions involving activities in weight-bearing or standing positions., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Physical Therapy Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Rehabilitation based upon research evidence gives stroke survivors the best chance of recovery. There is substantial research to guide practice in stroke rehabilitation, yet uptake of evidence by healthcare professionals is typically slow and patients often do not receive evidence-based care. Implementation interventions are an important means to translate knowledge from research to practice and thus optimise the care and outcomes for stroke survivors. A synthesis of research evidence is required to guide the selection and use of implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation., Objectives: To assess the effects of implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices (including clinical assessments and treatments recommended in evidence-based guidelines) in stroke rehabilitation and to assess the effects of implementation interventions tailored to address identified barriers to change compared to non-tailored interventions in stroke rehabilitation., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other databases to 17 October 2019. We searched OpenGrey, performed citation tracking and reference checking for included studies and contacted authors of included studies to obtain further information and identify potentially relevant studies., Selection Criteria: We included individual and cluster randomised trials, non-randomised trials, interrupted time series studies and controlled before-after studies comparing an implementation intervention to no intervention or to another implementation approach in stroke rehabilitation. Participants were qualified healthcare professionals working in stroke rehabilitation and the patients they cared for. Studies were considered for inclusion regardless of date, language or publication status. Main outcomes were healthcare professional adherence to recommended treatment, patient adherence to recommended treatment, patient health status and well-being, healthcare professional intention and satisfaction, resource use outcomes and adverse effects., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was any implementation intervention compared to no intervention., Main Results: Nine cluster randomised trials (12,428 patient participants) and three ongoing trials met our selection criteria. Five trials (8865 participants) compared an implementation intervention to no intervention, three trials (3150 participants) compared one implementation intervention to another implementation intervention, and one three-arm trial (413 participants) compared two different implementation interventions to no intervention. Eight trials investigated multifaceted interventions; educational meetings and educational materials were the most common components. Six trials described tailoring the intervention content to identified barriers to change. Two trials focused on evidence-based stroke rehabilitation in the acute setting, four focused on the subacute inpatient setting and three trials focused on stroke rehabilitation in the community setting. We are uncertain if implementation interventions improve healthcare professional adherence to evidence-based practice in stroke rehabilitation compared with no intervention as the certainty of the evidence was very low (risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.53 to 2.64; 2 trials, 39 clusters, 1455 patient participants; I 2 = 0%). Low-certainty evidence indicates implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation may lead to little or no difference in patient adherence to recommended treatment (number of recommended performed outdoor journeys adjusted mean difference (MD) 0.5, 95% CI -1.8 to 2.8; 1 trial, 21 clusters, 100 participants) and patient psychological well-being (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.02, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.50; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1273 participants; I 2 = 0%) compared with no intervention. Moderate-certainty evidence indicates implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation probably lead to little or no difference in patient health-related quality of life (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.05; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1242 participants; I 2 = 0%) and activities of daily living (MD 0.29, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.73; 2 trials, 65 clusters, 1272 participants; I 2 = 0%) compared with no intervention. No studies reported the effects of implementation interventions in stroke rehabilitation on healthcare professional intention to change behaviour or satisfaction. Five studies reported economic outcomes, with one study reporting cost-effectiveness of the implementation intervention. However, this was assessed at high risk of bias. The other four studies did not demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of interventions. Tailoring interventions to identified barriers did not alter results. We are uncertain of the effect of one implementation intervention versus another given the limited very low-certainty evidence., Authors' Conclusions: We are uncertain if implementation interventions improve healthcare professional adherence to evidence-based practice in stroke rehabilitation compared with no intervention as the certainty of the evidence is very low., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: Unequal access to inpatient rehabilitation after stroke has been reported. We sought to identify and compare patient and service factors associated with referral and admission to an inpatient rehabilitation facility (IRF) after acute hospital care for stroke in two countries with publicly-funded healthcare., Methods: We compared two cohorts of stroke patients admitted consecutively to eight acute public hospitals in Australia in 2013-2014 (n = 553), and to one large university hospital in Norway in 2012-2013 (n = 723). Outcomes were: referral to an IRF; admission to an IRF if referred. Logistic regression models were used to identify and compare factors associated with each outcome., Results: Participants were similar in both cohorts: mean age 73 years, 40-44% female, 12-13% intracerebral haemorrhage, ~ 77% mild stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale < 8). Services received during the acute admission differed (Australia vs. Norway): stroke unit treatment 82% vs. 97%, physiotherapy 93% vs. 79%, occupational therapy 83% vs. 77%, speech therapy 78% vs. 13%. Proportions referred to an IRF were: 48% (Australia) and 37% (Norway); proportions admitted: 35% (Australia) and 28% (Norway). Factors associated with referral in both countries were: moderately severe stroke, receiving stroke unit treatment or allied health assessments during the acute admission, living in the community, and independent pre-stroke mobility. Directions of associations were mostly congruent; however younger patients were more likely to be referred and admitted in Norway only. Models for admission among patients referred identified few associated factors suggesting that additional factors were important for this stage of the process., Conclusions: Similar factors were associated with referral to inpatient rehabilitation after acute stroke in both countries, despite differing service provision and access rates. Assuming it is not feasible to provide inpatient rehabilitation to all patients following stroke, the criteria for the selection of candidates need to be understood to address unwanted biases.

Introduction: Increasing physical activity reduces secondary stroke risk factors, but many stroke survivors have low levels of physical activity. Supervised exercise delivered via telehealth has the potential to overcome barriers to increased physical activity in stroke survivors. Our scoping review will examine the emerging field of supervised exercise delivered via telehealth to map the available evidence in relation to its efficacy, acceptability, safety and feasibility in chronic conditions to inform future research into its ability to increase physical activity., Methods and Analysis: The methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley will be applied to our scoping review. A systematic search of Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane, Pedro and Embase; hand searching of pertinent studies' reference lists; and consultation with experts in the field will identify relevant papers. Studies involving participants with a chronic condition who undertake supervised exercise delivered by a health professional via telehealth targeted at improving secondary stroke risk factors or involving lower limb weight-bearing exercise will be included. Study selection and critical appraisal of individual studies will be carried out independently by two authors with discrepancies resolved by a third author. Quantitative and qualitative data will be charted using a standardised form. Results will be tabulated and narratively summarised to highlight findings relevant to the review's research questions and to inform recommendations for future research., Ethics and Dissemination: Our review will significantly contribute to the knowledge base of exercise and rehabilitation delivered via telehealth and its application in chronic conditions, including stroke. Findings will be relevant to researchers, healthcare workers and policy-makers and will be disseminated through publication and presentations. Only secondary deidentified data will be included, therefore ethics approval will not be sought. This protocol is not registered as PROSPERO currently excludes scoping reviews., Competing Interests: Competing interests: ERR reports support from an Australian Government Research Training Program Scholarship. CE reports support from the National Heart Foundation of Australia and EAL reports support from the National Health and Medical Research Council., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To identify factors associated with receiving acute goal-directed treatment, being assessed for ongoing rehabilitation, and receiving post-acute rehabilitation after having a stroke., Design: Retrospective analysis of National Stroke Audit data for patients with acute stroke treated at Australian hospitals during 1 September 2014 - 28 February 2015., Setting, Participants: 112 Australian hospitals that admit adults with acute stroke., Main Outcomes: Associations between patient-related and organisational factors and the provision of rehabilitation interventions., Results: Data for 3462 patients were eligible for analysis; their median age was 74 years, 1962 (57%) were men, and 2470 (71%) had received care in a stroke unit. 2505 patients (72%) received goal-directed treatment during their acute admission; it was not provided to 364 patients (10.5%) who were responsive, had not fully recovered, and did not refuse treatment. Factors associated with higher odds of receiving goal-directed treatment included goal-setting with the patient and their family (odds ratio [OR], 6.75; 95% CI, 5.07-8.90) and receiving care in a stroke unit (OR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.61-2.70). 1358 patients (39%) underwent further rehabilitation after discharge from acute care; factors associated with receiving post-acute rehabilitation included care in a stroke unit (OR, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.34-2.22) and having an arm or speech deficit. Dementia was associated with lower odds of receiving acute goal-directed treatment (OR, 0.49; 95%, 0.33-0.73) and post-acute rehabilitation (OR, 0.43; 95%, 0.30-0.61)., Conclusions: Access to stroke units and to early and ongoing rehabilitation for patients after stroke can be improved in Australia, both to optimise outcomes and to reduce the burden of care on underresourced community and primary care providers., (© 2018 AMPCo Pty Ltd.)

Objective: There is a growing need for researchers to demonstrate impact, which is reliant on successful research translation. The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council funded a Centre of Research Excellence in Stroke Rehabilitation and Brain Recovery (CRE-Stroke) to enhance collaborations between researchers conducting different types of stroke rehabilitation research. The purpose of this study was to explore opinions about research translation held by CRE-Stroke researchers conducting preclinical and clinical research, in terms of scope, importance, responsibility and perceived skills and knowledge., Design: Mixed-methods study, comprising a paper-based survey and semistructured interviews. Interview data were inductively coded and thematically analysed. Survey and interview data were compared and synthesised., Participants: 55 (7 preclinical, 48 clinical) researchers attending a CRE-Stroke research forum completed a paper-based survey. Semistructured interviews with 22 CRE-Stroke (5 preclinical, 17 clinical) researchers were conducted., Results: Research translation was described as translating to other research and translating to clinical practice and policy. Most researchers (n=54, 98%) reported that research translation was important, particularly in terms of generating research impact, but the most common sign of project completion reported by researchers (n=7, 100% preclinical; n=37, 77% clinical) was publication. Most researchers (preclinical n=4, 57%; clinical n=37, 77%) reported having responsibility for translating research, but less than half reported having the necessary skills (n=1, 14% preclinical; n=17, 35% clinical) and knowledge (n=3, 43% preclinical; n=19, 40% clinical). Differing opinions about who should be responsible for translating findings to clinical practice were expressed., Conclusions: Stroke rehabilitation researchers appear confident to translate their research via the traditional mechanism of publications. To optimise impact, clarity is needed regarding who is best placed to translate research findings to clinical practice and policy. Education and skills development to apply broader translation processes are needed to maximise the use of research at all stages., Competing Interests: Competing interests: EAL was employed by CRE-Stroke at the time data were collected and analysed., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Despite the exponential growth in the evidence base for stroke rehabilitation, there is still a paucity of knowledge about how to consistently and sustainably deliver evidence-based stroke rehabilitation therapies in clinical practice. This means that people with stroke will not consistently benefit from research breakthroughs, simply because clinicians do not always have the skills, authority, knowledge or resources to be able to translate the findings from a research trial and apply these in clinical practice. This "point of view" article by an interdisciplinary, international team illustrates the lack of available evidence to guide the translation of evidence to practice in rehabilitation, by presenting a comprehensive and systematic content analysis of articles that were published in 2016 in leading clinical stroke rehabilitation journals commonly read by clinicians. Our review confirms that only a small fraction (2.5%) of published stroke rehabilitation research in these journals evaluate the implementation of evidence-based interventions into health care practice. We argue that in order for stroke rehabilitation research to contribute to enhanced health and well-being of people with stroke, journals, funders, policy makers, researchers, clinicians, and professional associations alike need to actively support and promote (through funding, conducting, or disseminating) implementation and evaluation research.

Background: Stroke is the third leading cause of disability worldwide. Physical activity is important for secondary stroke prevention and for promoting functional recovery. However, people with stroke are more inactive than healthy age-matched controls. Therefore, interventions to increase activity after stroke are vital to reduce stroke-related disability., Objectives: To summarise the available evidence regarding the effectiveness of commercially available, wearable activity monitors and smartphone applications for increasing physical activity levels in people with stroke., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and the following clinical trial registers: WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Clinical Trials, EU Clinical Trial Register, ISRCTN Registry, Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, and Stroke Trials Registry to 3 March 2018. We also searched reference lists, Web of Science forward tracking, and Google Scholar, and contacted trial authors to obtain further data if required. We did not restrict the search on language or publication status., Selection Criteria: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and randomised cross-over trials that included use of activity monitors versus no intervention, another type of intervention, or other activity monitor. Participants were aged 18 years or older with a diagnosis of stroke, in hospital or living in the community. Primary outcome measures were steps per day and time in moderate-to-vigorous intensity activity. Secondary outcomes were sedentary time, time spent in light intensity physical activity, walking duration, fatigue, mood, quality of life, community participation and adverse events. We excluded upper limb monitors that only measured upper limb activity., Data Collection and Analysis: We followed standard Cochrane methodology to analyse and interpret the data. At least two authors independently screened titles and abstracts for inclusion. We resolved disagreements by consulting a third review author. We extracted the following data from included studies into a standardised template: type of study, participant population, study setting, intervention and co-interventions, time-frame, and outcomes. We graded levels of bias as high, low, or unclear, and assessed the quality of evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach., Main Results: We retrieved 28,098 references, from which we identified 29 potential articles. Four RCTs (in 11 reports) met the inclusion criteria.The sample sizes ranged from 27 to 135 (total 245 participants). Time poststroke varied from less than one week (n = 1), to one to three months (n = 2), or a median of 51 months (n = 1). Stroke severity ranged from a median of one to six on the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS). Three studies were conducted in inpatient rehabilitation, and one was in a university laboratory. All studies compared use of activity monitor plus another intervention (e.g. a walking retraining programme or an inpatient rehabilitation programme) versus the other intervention alone. Three studies reported on the primary outcome of daily step counts.There was no clear effect for the use of activity monitors in conjunction with other interventions on step count in a community setting (mean difference (MD) -1930 steps, 95% confidence interval (CI) -4410 to 550; 1 RCT, 27 participants; very low-quality evidence), or in an inpatient rehabilitation setting (MD 1400 steps, 95% CI -40 to 2840; 2 RCTs, 83 participants; very low-quality evidence). No studies reported the primary outcome moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, but one did report time spent in moderate and vigorous intensity activity separately: this study reported that an activity monitor in addition to usual inpatient rehabilitation increased the time spent on moderate intensity physical activity by 4.4 minutes per day (95% CI 0.28 to 8.52; 1 RCT, 48 participants; low-quality evidence) compared with usual rehabilitation alone, but there was no clear effect for the use of an activity monitor plus usual rehabilitation for increasing time spent in vigorous intensity physical activity compared to usual rehabilitation (MD 2.6 minutes per day, 95% CI -0.8 to 6; 1 RCT, 48 participants; low-quality evidence). The overall risk of bias was low, apart from high-risk for blinding of participants and study personnel. None of the included studies reported any information relating to adverse effects., Authors' Conclusions: Only four small RCTs with 274 participants (three in inpatient rehabilitation and one in the community) have examined the efficacy of activity monitors for increasing physical activity after stroke. Although these studies showed activity monitors could be incorporated into practice, there is currently not enough evidence to support the use of activity monitors to increase physical activity after stroke.

Background Inequities in accessing inpatient rehabilitation after stroke have been reported in many countries and impact on patient outcomes. Objective To explore variation in international recommendations regarding which patients should receive inpatient rehabilitation after stroke and to describe reported access to rehabilitation. Methods A scoping review was conducted to identify clinical guidelines with recommendations regarding which patients should access inpatient rehabilitation after stroke, and data regarding the proportion of patients accessing stroke rehabilitation. Four bibliographic databases and grey literature were searched. Results Twenty-eight documents were included. Selection criteria for post-acute inpatient rehabilitation were identified for 14 countries or regions and summary data on the proportion of patients receiving inpatient rehabilitation were identified for 14 countries. In Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom, it is recommended that all patients with stroke symptoms should access rehabilitation, whereas guidelines from the United States, Canada, and Europe did not consistently recommend rehabilitation for people with severe stroke. Access to inpatient rehabilitation ranged from 13% in Sweden to 57% in Israel. Differences in availability of early supported discharge/home rehabilitation programs and variations in reporting methods may influence the ability to reliably compare access to rehabilitation between regions. Conclusion Recommendations regarding which patients with moderate and severe strokes should access ongoing rehabilitation are inconsistent. Clinical practice guidelines from different countries regarding post-stroke rehabilitation do not always reflect the evidence regarding the likely benefits to people with stroke. Inequity in access to rehabilitation after stroke is an international issue.

Recent reviews have demonstrated that the quality of stroke rehabilitation research has continued to improve over the last four decades but despite this progress, there are still many barriers in moving the field forward. Rigorous development, monitoring and complete reporting of interventions in stroke trials are essential in providing rehabilitation evidence that is robust, meaningful and implementable. An international partnership of stroke rehabilitation experts committed to develop consensus-based core recommendations with a remit of addressing the issues identified as limiting stroke rehabilitation research in the areas of developing, monitoring and reporting stroke rehabilitation interventions. Work exploring each of the three areas took place via multiple teleconferences and a two-day meeting in Philadelphia in May 2016. A total of 15 recommendations were made. To validate the need for the recommendations, the group reviewed all stroke rehabilitation trials published in 2015 (n=182 papers). Our review highlighted that the majority of publications did not clearly describe how interventions were developed or monitored during the trial. In particular, under-reporting of the theoretical rationale for the intervention and the components of the intervention call into question many interventions that have been evaluated for efficacy. More trials were found to have addressed the reporting of interventions recommendations than those related to development or monitoring. Nonetheless, the majority of reporting recommendations were still not adequately described. To progress the field of stroke rehabilitation research and to ensure stroke patients receive optimal evidence-based clinical care, we urge the research community to endorse and adopt our recommendations.

Objective: To explore the factors perceived to affect rehabilitation assessment and referral practices for patients with stroke., Design: Qualitative study using data from focus groups analysed thematically and then mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework., Setting: Eight acute stroke units in two states of Australia., Subjects: Health professionals working in acute stroke units., Interventions: Health professionals at all sites had participated in interventions to improve rehabilitation assessment and referral practices, which included provision of copies of an evidence-based decision-making rehabilitation Assessment Tool and pathway., Results: Eight focus groups were conducted (32 total participants). Reported rehabilitation assessment and referral practices varied markedly between units. Continence and mood were not routinely assessed (4 units), and people with stroke symptoms were not consistently referred to rehabilitation (4 units). Key factors influencing practice were identified and included whether health professionals perceived that use of the Assessment Tool would improve rehabilitation assessment practices (theoretical domain 'social and professional role'); beliefs about outcomes from changing practice such as increased equity for patients or conversely that changing rehabilitation referral patterns would not affect access to rehabilitation ('belief about consequences'); the influence of the unit's relationships with other groups including rehabilitation teams ('social influences' domain) and understanding within the acute stroke unit team of the purpose of changing assessment practices ('knowledge' domain)., Conclusion: This study has identified that health professionals' perceived roles, beliefs about consequences from changing practice and relationships with rehabilitation service providers were perceived to influence rehabilitation assessment and referral practices on Australian acute stroke units.

Background: Circuit class therapy (CCT) offers a supervised group forum for people after stroke to practise tasks, enabling increased practice time without increasing staffing. This is an update of the original review published in 2010., Objectives: To examine the effectiveness and safety of CCT on mobility in adults with stroke., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched January 2017), CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library, Issue 12, 2016), MEDLINE (1950 to January 2017), Embase (1980 to January 2017), CINAHL (1982 to January 2017), and 14 other electronic databases (to January 2017). We also searched proceedings from relevant conferences, reference lists, and unpublished theses; contacted authors of published trials and other experts in the field; and searched relevant clinical trials and research registers., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) including people over 18 years old, diagnosed with stroke of any severity, at any stage, or in any setting, receiving CCT., Data Collection and Analysis: Review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed risk of bias in all included studies, and extracted data., Main Results: We included 17 RCTs involving 1297 participants. Participants were stroke survivors living in the community or receiving inpatient rehabilitation. Most could walk 10 metres without assistance. Ten studies (835 participants) measured walking capacity (measuring how far the participant could walk in six minutes) demonstrating that CCT was superior to the comparison intervention (Six-Minute Walk Test: mean difference (MD), fixed-effect, 60.86 m, 95% confidence interval (CI) 44.55 to 77.17, GRADE: moderate). Eight studies (744 participants) measured gait speed, again finding in favour of CCT compared with other interventions (MD 0.15 m/s, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.19, GRADE: moderate). Both of these effects are considered clinically meaningful. We were able to pool other measures to demonstrate the superior effects of CCT for aspects of walking and balance (Timed Up and Go: five studies, 488 participants, MD -3.62 seconds, 95% CI -6.09 to -1.16; Activities of Balance Confidence scale: two studies, 103 participants, MD 7.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 14.87). Two other pooled balance measures failed to demonstrate superior effects (Berg Blance Scale and Step Test). Independent mobility, as measured by the Stroke Impact Scale, Functional Ambulation Classification and the Rivermead Mobility Index, also improved more in CCT interventions compared with others. Length of stay showed a non-significant effect in favour of CCT (two trials, 217 participants, MD -16.35, 95% CI -37.69 to 4.99). Eight trials (815 participants) measured adverse events (falls during therapy): there was a non-significant effect of greater risk of falls in the CCT groups (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08, GRADE: very low). Time after stroke did not make a difference to the positive outcomes, nor did the quality or size of the trials. Heterogeneity was generally low; risk of bias was variable across the studies with poor reporting of study conduct in several of the trials., Authors' Conclusions: There is moderate evidence that CCT is effective in improving mobility for people after stroke - they may be able to walk further, faster, with more independence and confidence in their balance. The effects may be greater later after the stroke, and are of clinical significance. Further high-quality research is required, investigating quality of life, participation and cost-benefits, that compares CCT with standard care and that also investigates the influence of factors such as stroke severity and age. The potential risk of increased falls during CCT needs to be monitored.

Background: We sought to determine whether Australasian health professionals' opinions regarding early mobilization after stroke changed between 2008 and 2014, when a large international trial of early mobilization (A Very Early Rehabilitation Trial, AVERT) was underway., Methods: Attendees at the two major Australasian stroke conferences in 2008 and 2014 were surveyed. Participants rated their agreement with statements about the risks and benefits of commencing mobilization within 24 hours of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke using a 5-point Likert scale. Participants in 2014 were asked about their awareness of AVERT. Logistic regressions were performed to determine whether the time point (2008 versus 2014) or awareness of AVERT influenced opinions about early mobilization., Results: Surveys were completed by 443 health professionals (2008: N = 202; 2014: N = 241). Most respondents in 2014 reported that early mobilization was beneficial and not harmful to people with ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. Opinions regarding mobilization after ischemic stroke did not change significantly between 2008 and 2014. In 2014, a significantly greater proportion of respondents believed that early mobilization after hemorrhagic stroke was helpful (2008: n = 98 of 202 [49%] versus 2014: n = 170 of 241 [71%], P < .01). Awareness of AVERT was significantly associated with the opinion that early mobilization was beneficial and not harmful to patients with stroke (P < .05)., Conclusions: Australasian health professionals' opinions of early mobilization after hemorrhagic stroke changed between 2008 and 2014, prior to reporting of the AVERT trial. Our results suggest that awareness of an ongoing research trial can lead to changes in opinions before the efficacy of the experimental intervention is known., (Copyright © 2017 National Stroke Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In 2011, more than half of the patients with stroke in Australian hospitals were not assessed for the need for rehabilitation. Further, there were no recommended criteria to guide rehabilitation assessment decisions. Subsequently, a decision-making tool called the Assessment for Rehabilitation Tool (ART) was developed. The ART was designed to assist Australian hospital clinicians to identify the rehabilitation needs of patients with stroke using evidence-based criteria. The ART was released and made freely available for use in 2012. This study evaluated the effectiveness of an education-only intervention (1 onsite education session and distribution of the ART) and a multifaceted intervention (2 or more onsite education sessions, distribution of the ART, audit and feedback, barrier identification, site-specific strategy development, promotion of interdisciplinary teamwork, opinion leaders and reminders) for improving assessments of rehabilitation needs after stroke., Methods: Ten hospitals in 2 states of Australia were randomly assigned to an education-only or a multifaceted intervention. Medical records were audited by assessors blinded to group allocation before and after the implementation period. Difference in the proportion of patients assessed for rehabilitation before and after the intervention was analysed using mixed-effects logistic regression analysis, with time period as the dependent variable, an interaction between intervention type and time included to test for differences between the interventions, and hospital included as the random effect to account for patient clustering., Results: Data from 586 patients (284 pre-intervention; 302 post-intervention; age 76 years, 59 % male) showed that the multifaceted intervention was not more effective than education-only in improving the proportion of patients whose rehabilitation needs were assessed (reference category education-only; odds ratio 1.29, 95 % confidence interval 0.63-2.67, p = 0.483). Post-intervention, the odds of a patient's rehabilitation needs being assessed was 3.69 times greater than pre-intervention (95 % confidence interval 2.57-5.30, p < 0.001). Evidence-based criteria were not consistently used when patients were deemed to have no rehabilitation needs., Conclusions: A multifaceted intervention was not more effective than education-only in improving the assessment of rehabilitation needs of patients with stroke. Further interventions are required to ensure that all patients are assessed for the need for rehabilitation using evidence-based criteria., Trial Registration: ANZCTR (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry), ACTRN12616000340437.

Purpose: Less than half of the patients with stroke in Australian hospitals are assessed by rehabilitation specialists. We sought to explore how clinicians working in acute stroke units (ASUs) determine which patients to refer to rehabilitation services., Method: Qualitative descriptive study. Team meetings were observed and medical records were reviewed over four weeks at two ASUs. Focus groups were conducted with staff from eight ASUs in two states of Australia., Results: Rehabilitation was mentioned in team meetings for 50/64 patients (78%) during the observation period. Rehabilitation referrals were organised for 47 patients (94%) for whom rehabilitation was discussed (74% of the sample); and for no patients when rehabilitation was not discussed. Factors identified that influenced whether referrals were organised included the anticipated discharge destination; severity of stroke; staff expectations of the patient's recovery; and if there was advocacy by families about rehabilitation. Clinicians tended to refer the patients they considered would be accepted by the rehabilitation service. Staff at two ASUs expressed concern that referring all patients with stroke-related deficits to rehabilitation would be unfavourable with rehabilitation providers., Conclusions: Decisions made by ASU staff regarding who to refer to stroke rehabilitation are often not solely based on patients' rehabilitation requirements. Implications for Rehabilitation Not all patients on acute stroke units (ASUs) who may have benefited from rehabilitation were offered rehabilitation referrals. Criteria for rehabilitation referrals need to be made explicit and discussed openly with consumers, ASU clinicians and rehabilitation specialists. A change in rehabilitation assessment practices is required to provide data regarding the unmet rehabilitation needs of patients with stroke. New models of rehabilitation service delivery or increased rehabilitation services may be required to meet the rehabilitation needs of all patients with stroke.

Objectives: To examine the frequency and factors associated with patients with stroke in Australian hospitals receiving documented rehabilitation assessments; to examine the criteria used when rehabilitation was not recommended; and to examine whether being assessed for rehabilitation affected access to rehabilitation., Design: Retrospective medical record audit of patients with a diagnosis of stroke who were discharged consecutively between 2013 and 2014., Setting: Acute care public hospitals., Participants: Adults with stroke (N=333) receiving care in participating hospitals., Interventions: Not applicable., Main Outcome Measure: Documented assessment regarding patient suitability for rehabilitation during acute hospitalization., Results: Data from 292 patients were included for analysis (60% men; mean age, 72y). Of the patients, 42% were assessed for rehabilitation by a health professional providing care in the hospital, 43% were assessed for rehabilitation by a representative from a rehabilitation service, and 37% did not receive any documented rehabilitation assessment. In multivariable analysis, patients were significantly more likely to be assessed for rehabilitation if they lived in the community before their stroke, had moderate severity strokes, or received occupational therapy during hospital admission. Rehabilitation was not recommended in 9% of assessments despite the presence of stroke-related symptoms. Patients not assessed for rehabilitation were significantly less likely to access rehabilitation than patients who were assessed., Conclusions: More than one third of patients were not assessed for rehabilitation. When assessed, rehabilitation was not consistently recommended for patients with stroke-related symptoms. This study highlights factors that increase the likelihood of being assessed for rehabilitation., (Copyright © 2015 American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To determine the effects of a sensory retraining protocol on sensation, postural control, and gait in acute stroke subjects., Design: Randomized controlled pilot trial., Setting: Inpatient rehabilitation hospital., Participants: Twenty-one subjects with sensory deficits in the feet, undergoing rehabilitation for stroke., Intervention: Sensory retraining of the more affected lower limb versus relaxation (sham intervention)., Main Outcome Measures: Light touch at the sole of the foot (Semmes-Weinstein monofilaments), proprioception (Distal Proprioception Test), postural control (Berg Balance Scale), and gait (timed, Iowa Level of Assistance Scale)., Results: Significant improvements (P<.05) over time were found in light touch at 3 points of the feet and in postural control, timed gait, and walking aid. No significant time effects were observed in proprioception or amount of assistance required to walk. No significant differences were detected between groups in any of the outcome variables, apart from light touch at the first metatarsal. The study had poor power (13%) to detect group effects due to the small sample size., Conclusions: Results of this pilot study are unable to support or refute the routine use of sensory retraining of the lower limb for people during inpatient rehabilitation after stroke. Further research with a larger sample size is required.

Background: Conferences are a widespread method of research dissemination; however, their impact on practice is not well understood empirically. We aimed to investigate how conference participation influences clinical and research practice in the stroke field and to explore which presentation formats are most impactful. Methods: Clinicians, researchers and doctoral students who attended a multidisciplinary stroke conference were invited to participate. Surveys were administered at the conference and 3 months later. Both surveys contained questions about how respondents remember and apply information learnt at conferences in their clinical and/or research practice. Results: Baseline survey responses from 120 conference participants were analysed (80.8% female, 69.0% clinicians, 60.8% aged 31–50 years), and 53 participants completed the follow-up survey. Of the 87 clinician respondents, 73 (83.9%) reported that their clinical practice had changed as a result of attending conferences. Workshops incorporating skill demonstrations were rated most useful for changing clinical practice, whereas oral presentations detailing methodology were more influential on research practice. Attending conferences was rated more impactful on clinical practice than reading journal articles or textbooks. Conclusion: Conference presentations can be a useful method for disseminating research findings to influence clinical practice and should be considered by researchers to maximise the translation and impact of their work. Scientific conferences are a common way for researchers to share their findings, but the impact of conference participation on clinical and research practice is not well understood. In our survey of clinicians, researchers and students who attended a stroke conference, participants reported that conferences are more influential in changing clinical practice than journal articles. This suggests that conference presentations can be a useful method for enhancing evidence‐based practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective The COVID-19 pandemic has seen a rapid shift to telehealth-delivered physical therapy services. Common impairments after stroke create unique challenges when providing rehabilitation via telehealth, particularly when it involves activities undertaken in weight-bearing or standing positions, including walking training. Our scoping review maps the evidence regarding safety, efficacy, and feasibility of remotely supervised telehealth interventions involving activities undertaken in weight-bearing or standing positions for people after stroke. Methods Searches of relevant databases for primary research studies were conducted using keywords relating to exercise and telehealth. Studies of stroke survivors undertaking interventions involving activities in weight-bearing or standing positions, supervised in real-time via telehealth were included. Two reviewers independently appraised all studies. Data were charted by one reviewer, checked by another, and results synthesized narratively. Results Seven studies (2 randomized trials, 1 mixed-methods, and 4 pre-post studies) were included, involving 179 participants. Some studies included stroke survivors with cognitive impairment, and 2 (29%) studies included only participants who walked independently. Adherence (reported in 3 studies) and satisfaction (reported in 4 studies) were good, and no serious adverse events (data from 4 studies) related to interventions were reported. Strategies to overcome technological barriers were used to optimize intervention safety and feasibility, along with physiological monitoring, caregiver assistance, and in-person exercise prescription. However, there is limited high-quality evidence of efficacy. Conclusions We identified strategies used in research to date that can support current practice. However, urgent research is needed to ensure that stroke survivors are receiving evidence-based, effective services. Impact The COVID-19 pandemic has necessitated a rapid shift to telerehabilitation services for people with stroke, but there is little evidence to guide best practice. Our review provides practical guidance and strategies to overcome barriers and optimize safety and adherence for telehealth interventions involving activities in weight-bearing or standing positions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To identify perceived enablers and barriers that may influence the implementation of water protocols (WPs) as an intervention for dysphagia in acute stroke settings. Method: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine nurses, eight speech-language pathologists (SLPs), five doctors and four dietitians working in acute stroke units in a major city in Australia. Data were thematically analysed and themes were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework. Result: Ten barriers and nine enablers were identified. Key barriers were: nurses lack oral care skills and agency nurses lack stroke-specific skills; only SLPs are perceived to be involved with WPs; WP rules will not get followed and may lead to adverse patient outcomes; WPs increase nursing workload; transient workforce impacts efficiency of implementation; and established culture of using thickened fluids. Key enablers were: patients would benefit from WPs; communication and education systems are already in place; acute hospital brings unique benefits; and peer support and modelling support implementation. Conclusion: The perceptions of barriers and enablers to implementation of WPs can be used to inform future studies designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of WPs and subsequently facilitate their uptake in acute stroke as an alternate dysphagia management strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is of critical importance that findings from the wealth of clinical physical therapist research are transferred into clinical practice without unnecessary delays. There is a lack of knowledge about strategies that can be used to effectively implement physical therapist research findings and evidence-based practice (EBP) into everyday clinical practice in different national settings and contexts. The purpose of this article is to contribute to knowledge about effective strategies for implementing EBP that have been studied in different national physical therapy settings. The specific aims of this article are to share experiences and provide a current multinational perspective on different approaches and strategies for implementing EBP and to highlight important considerations and implications for both research and practice. Six research studies from various settings in 3 countries are described and synthesized. Key characteristics of the studies and intervention components are tabulated and mapped to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care taxonomy. Commonalities and differences are presented. The implementation strategies described were: a theory-based guideline implementation tailored to identified barriers and facilitators; a multifaceted EBP training package; journal clubs; a multifaceted strategy comprising contextualized procedures, protocols, and standardized resources; barrier identification, education, audit, feedback, and reminders; and contextualized guidelines. Commonalities were the use of a multifaceted approach, educational measures, and clinical guidelines. Key outcomes across the studies were improved attitudes and increased awareness, knowledge, skills, and confidence in EBP; better access to clinical practice guidelines and other EBP resources; identification of barriers that could be targeted in future implementation activities; earlier referrals; and use of recommended outcome measures. The article can serve as a template for other physical therapist researchers in designing implementation studies, as well as to inform policies and practice for health care managers and decision makers who are looking for ways to implement research findings in their organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Length of stay (LOS) benchmark figures can be used to guide clinical practice in a rehabilitation ¡ setting. This prospective study trialled a computer-based program that provided real-time LOS f benchmark figures and alerted staff of patients approaching or exceeding LOS benchmark figures, and assessed its ability to identify patients with LOS beyond benchmark figures, reasons for these delays and effect on LOS, and staff perceptions of its usefulness. Methods: One-hundred-and-eight inpatients in a stroke rehabilitation unit (SRU) and 94 inpatients in a brain injury rehabilitation unit (BIRU) were included in the patient component of the study; 13 staff completed a post-trial survey > Findings: LOS in excess of benchmark figures was found for 48 (44%) SRU and 44 (47%) BIRU | participants, resulting in a total discharge delay of 6311 days. Reasons for discharge delay were diverse. Using the computer-based program did not consistently decrease LOS compared to data from the previous year. Staff perceptions regarding the usefulness of the computer-based program were mixed. Conclusions: The use of a computer-based program that provided real-time LOS benchmark figures was able to identify patients with LOS beyond benchmark figures but did not consistently decrease LOS and, on the whole, was not favourably received by clinical staff. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the rehabilitation of stroke survivors in Australia as of November 2016. Topics covered include the unmet rehabilitation needs of survivors one year after stroke, determining whether patients are qualified for rehabilitation, and inconsistencies in data and time points across rehabilitation studies. Also noted are international initiatives in developing patient-centered outcome and standardised measures for research studies on stroke recovery.