Florey Department of Neuroscience and Mental Health - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4
-
ItemEconomic evaluation of a phase III international randomised controlled trial of very early mobilisation after stroke (AVERT)(BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP, 2019-05)OBJECTIVES: While very early mobilisation (VEM) intervention for stroke patients was shown not to be effective at 3 months, 12 month clinical and economical outcomes remain unknown. The aim was to assess cost-effectiveness of a VEM intervention within a phase III randomised controlled trial (RCT). DESIGN: An economic evaluation alongside a RCT, and detailed resource use and cost analysis over 12 months post-acute stroke. SETTING: Multi-country RCT involved 58 stroke centres. PARTICIPANTS: 2104 patients with acute stroke who were admitted to a stroke unit. INTERVENTION: A very early rehabilitation intervention within 24 hours of stroke onset METHODS: Cost-utility analyses were undertaken according to pre-specified protocol measuring VEM against usual care (UC) based on 12 month outcomes. The analysis was conducted using both health sector and societal perspectives. Unit costs were sourced from participating countries. Details on resource use (both health and non-health) were sourced from cost case report form. Dichotomised modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores (0 to 2 vs 3 to 6) and quality adjusted-life years (QALYs) were used to compare the treatment effect of VEM and UC. The base case analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis and 95% CI for cost and QALYs were estimated by bootstrapping. Sensitivity analysis were conducted to examine the robustness of base case results. RESULTS: VEM and UC groups were comparable in the quantity of resource use and cost of each component. There were no differences in the probability of achieving a favourable mRS outcome (0.030, 95% CI -0.022 to 0.082), QALYs (0.013, 95% CI -0.041 to 0.016) and cost (AUD1082, 95% CI -$2520 to $4685 from a health sector perspective or AUD102, 95% CI -$6907 to $7111, from a societal perspective including productivity cost). Sensitivity analysis achieved results with mostly overlapped CIs. CONCLUSIONS: VEM and UC were associated with comparable costs, mRS outcome and QALY gains at 12 months. Compared with to UC, VEM is unlikely to be cost-effective. The long-term data collection during the trial also informed resource use and cost of care post-acute stroke across five participating countries. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12606000185561; Results.
-
ItemA systematic review protocol of timing, efficacy and cost effectiveness of upper limb therapy for motor recovery post-stroke(BMC, 2019-07-25)BACKGROUND: Improving upper limb (UL) motor recovery after stroke represents a major clinical and scientific goal. We aim to complete three systematic reviews to estimate the (1) association between time to start of UL therapy and motor recovery, (2) relative efficacy of different UL therapy approaches post-stroke and (3) cost-effectiveness of UL therapy interventions. METHODS: We have designed a systematic review protocol to address three systematic review questions that were each registered with PROSPERO. The search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials. We will include randomised controlled trials, non-randomised clinical trials, before-after studies and observational studies of adult stroke survivors with an average stroke onset < 6 months, undergoing hospital-based therapy to improve UL function. Eligible interventions will aim to promote UL functional recovery. Two reviewers will independently screen, select and extract data. Study risk of bias will be appraised using appropriate tools. Clinical measures of motor recovery will be investigated (primary measure Fugl Meyer UL assessment), as well as measures of health-related quality of life (primary measure EQ-5D) and all cost-effectiveness analyses completed. Secondary outcomes include therapy dose (minutes, weeks, repetitions as available) and safety (i.e. adverse events, serious adverse events). A narrative synthesis will describe quality and content of the evidence. If feasible, we will conduct random effects meta-analyses where appropriate. DISCUSSION: We anticipate the findings of this review will increase our understanding of UL therapy and inform the generation of novel, data-driven hypotheses for future UL therapy research post-stroke. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018019367, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018111629, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018111628.
-
ItemNo Preview AvailableA stroke recovery trial development framework: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Second Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable(SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD, 2019-10)A major goal of the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable (SRRR) is to accelerate development of effective treatments to enhance stroke recovery beyond that expected to occur spontaneously or with current approaches. In this paper, we describe key issues for the next generation of stroke recovery treatment trials and present the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable Trials Development Framework (SRRR-TDF). An exemplar (an upper limb recovery trial) is presented to demonstrate the utility of this framework to guide the GO, NO-GO decision-making process in trial development.
-
ItemA Framework for Designing Inpatient Stroke Rehabilitation Facilities: A New Approach Using Interdisciplinary Value-Focused Thinking(SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC, 2019-10)AIM: To use Value-Focused Thinking to investigate what is important in the design of inpatient stroke rehabilitation facility buildings. BACKGROUND: Many stroke patients require inpatient rehabilitation in a dedicated facility. Rehabilitation facilities are healthcare spaces, but they are also learning spaces where patients practice targeted tasks to acquire new skills and to reacquire skills and abilities that were compromised as a result of their stroke. There is currently no consensus regarding how the design of inpatient rehabilitation facilities could be optimized for patients' learning. METHOD: We used Value-Focused Thinking to develop a framework of what interdisciplinary experts consider important for inpatient stroke rehabilitation facility design. Two workshops were conducted. The following experts were invited to participate: past patients with experience of stroke rehabilitation; stroke rehabilitation clinicians; stroke rehabilitation academics; healthcare environments academics; learning environments academics; architects, designers, and wayfinders with experience designing healthcare or learning environments; and healthcare design policy makers. RESULTS: Thirty experts participated. The experts' final framework included 16 criteria that were considered fundamentally important for inpatient stroke rehabilitation facility design, and 14 criteria that were considered instrumentally important. Inpatient stroke rehabilitation facility design should maximize efficiency, maximize effectiveness (i.e., patients' clinical and functional outcomes), foster emotional well-being, and maximize safety. Opportunities to practice physical, cognitive, and social activity were considered important for patients' outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Value-Focused Thinking was an effective and equitable means of engaging experts from multiple disciplines. Designers, planners, and developers of inpatient stroke rehabilitation facilities should consider the rehabilitation-specific framework developed in this study alongside evidence from other healthcare settings.