Intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour and improve outcomes after stroke (Get Set Go): a study protocol for the process evaluation of a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (RECREATE).

INTRODUCTION: Stroke survivors spend long periods of time engaging in sedentary behaviour (SB) even when their functional recovery is good. In the RECREATE programme, an intervention aimed at reducing SB ('Get Set Go') will be implemented and evaluated in a pragmatic external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations. We report the protocol for the process evaluation which will address the following objectives: (1) describe and clarify causal assumptions about the intervention, and its mechanisms of impact; (2) assess implementation fidelity; (3) explore views, perceptions and acceptability of the intervention to staff, stroke survivors and their carers; (4) establish the contextual factors that influence implementation, intervention mechanisms and outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This pilot trial will be conducted in 15 UK-based National Health Service stroke services. This process evaluation study, underpinned by the Medical Research Council guidance, will be undertaken in six of the randomised services (four intervention, two control). Data collection includes the following: observations of staff training sessions, non-participant observations in inpatient and community settings, semi-structured interviews with staff, patients and carers, and documentary analysis of key intervention components. Additional quantitative implementation data will be collected in all sites. Training observations and documentary analysis data will be summarised, with other observational and interview data analysed using thematic analysis. Relevant theories will be used to interpret the findings, including the theoretical domains framework, normalisation process theory and the theoretical framework of acceptability. Anticipated outputs include the following: recommendations for intervention refinements (both content and implementation); a revised implementation plan and a refined logic model. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by Yorkshire & The Humber - Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 19/YH/0403). Findings will be disseminated via peer review publications, and national and international conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN82280581.

RECREATE: a study protocol for a multicentre pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) in UK stroke services evaluating an intervention to reduce sedentary behaviour in stroke survivors (Get Set Go) with embedded process and economic evaluations.

INTRODUCTION: Sedentary behaviour (sitting or lying during waking hours without being otherwise active) is strongly associated with adverse health outcomes, including all-cause, cancer and cardiovascular mortality in adults. Stroke survivors are consistently reported as being more sedentary than healthy age-matched controls, spending more hours sedentary daily and sustaining longer unbroken bouts of sedentary time. An evidence-based and clinically feasible intervention ('Get Set Go') was developed. A pragmatic definitive trial to evaluate Get Set Go was planned; however, due to the unprecedented effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on National Health Service (NHS) services this study was reduced in size and scope to become an external pilot trial. We report the protocol for this external pilot trial, which aims to undertake a preliminary exploration of whether Get Set Go is likely to improve ability to complete extended activities of daily living in the first year post-stroke and inform future trial designs in stroke rehabilitation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial with embedded process and economic evaluations. UK-based stroke services will be randomised 1:1 to the intervention (usual care plus Get Set Go) or control (usual care) arm. Fifteen stroke services will recruit 300-400 stroke inpatient and carer participants, with follow-up at 6, 12 and 24 months. The proposed primary endpoint is stroke survivor self-reported Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living scale at 12 months. Endpoint analyses will be exploratory and provide preliminary estimates of intervention effect. The process evaluation will provide valuable information on intervention fidelity, acceptability and how it can be optimised. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by Yorkshire and The Humber - Bradford-Leeds Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 19/YH/0403). Results will be disseminated through journal publications and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This trial was registered prospectively on 01 April 2020 (ISRCTN ref: ISRCTN82280581).

Risk-of-bias assessment using Cochrane's revised tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was useful but challenging and resource-intensive: observations from a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To report our experience using version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Two reviewers independently applied RoB 2 to results of interest in a large systematic review of complex interventions and reached consensus. We recorded the time taken, and noted and discussed our difficulties using the tool, and the resolutions we adopted. We explored the time taken with regression analysis and summarized our experience of implementing the tool. RESULTS: We assessed risk of bias in 860 results of interest in 113 studies. Staff resource averaged 358 minutes per study (SD 183). Number of results (ß = 22) and reports (ß = 14) per study and experience of the team (ß = -6) significantly affected assessment time. To implement the tool consistently, we developed cut points for missingness and considerations of balance regarding missingness, assumed some concerns with intervention deviations unless otherwise prevented or investigated, some concerns with measurements from unblinded self-reporting participants, and judged low risk of selection for certain dichotomous outcomes despite the absence of an analysis plan. CONCLUSION: The RoB 2 tool and guidance are useful but resource-intensive and challenging to implement. Critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should detail risk of bias implementation. Improved guidance focusing on implementation could assist reviewers.

New horizons in evidence-based care for older people: individual participant data meta-analysis.

Evidence-based decisions on clinical and cost-effectiveness of interventions are ideally informed by meta-analyses of intervention trial data. However, when undertaken, such meta-analyses in ageing research have typically been conducted using standard methods whereby summary (aggregate) data are extracted from published trial reports. Although meta-analysis of aggregate data can provide useful insights into the average effect of interventions within a selected trial population, it has limitations regarding robust conclusions on which subgroups of people stand to gain the greatest benefit from an intervention or are at risk of experiencing harm. Future evidence synthesis using individual participant data from ageing research trials for meta-analysis could transform understanding of the effectiveness of interventions for older people, supporting evidence-based and sustainable commissioning. A major advantage of individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) is that it enables examination of characteristics that predict treatment effects, such as frailty, disability, cognitive impairment, ethnicity, gender and other wider determinants of health. Key challenges of IPDMA relate to the complexity and resources needed for obtaining, managing and preparing datasets, requiring a meticulous approach involving experienced researchers, frequently with expertise in designing and analysing clinical trials. In anticipation of future IPDMA work in ageing research, we are establishing an international Ageing Research Trialists collective, to bring together trialists with a common focus on transforming care for older people as a shared ambition across nations.

A qualitative study of sedentary behaviours in stroke survivors: non-participant observations and interviews with stroke service staff in stroke units and community services.

PURPOSE: Sedentary behaviour (SB) is associated with negative health outcomes and is prevalent post-stroke. This study explored SB after stroke from the perspective of stroke service staff. METHODS: Qualitative mixed-methods study. Non-participant observations in two stroke services (England/Scotland) and semi-structured interviews with staff underpinned by the COM-B model of behaviour change. Observations were analysed thematically; interviews were analysed using the Framework approach. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty-two observation hours (October - December 2017), and 31 staff interviewed (January -June 2018). Four themes were identified: (1) Opportunities for staff to support stroke survivors to reduce SB; (2) Physical and psychological capability of staff to support stroke survivors to reduce SB; (3) Motivating factors influencing staff behaviour to support stroke survivors to reduce SB; (4) Staff suggestions for a future intervention to support stroke survivors to reduce SB. CONCLUSIONS: Staff are aware of the consequences of prolonged sitting but did not relate to SB. Explicit knowledge of SB was limited. Staff need training to support stroke survivors to reduce SB. Sedentary behaviour in the community was not reported to change markedly, highlighting the need to engage stroke survivors in movement from when capable in hospital, following through to home.Implications for rehabilitationStroke survivor sedentary behaviour is influenced, directly and indirectly, by the actions and instructions of stroke service staff in the inpatient and community setting.The built and social environment, both in the inpatient and community settings, may limit opportunities for safe movement and can result in stroke survivors spending more time sedentary.Stroke service staff appreciate the benefit of encouraging stroke survivors to stand and move more, if it is safe for them to do so.Staff would be amenable to encourage stroke survivors to reduce sedentary behaviour, provided they have the knowledge and resources to equip them to support this.

Home-based Extended Rehabilitation for Older people (HERO): study protocol for an individually randomised controlled multi-centre trial to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a home-based exercise intervention for older people with frailty as extended rehabilitation following acute illness or injury, including embedded process evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The majority of older people (> 65 years) in hospital have frailty and are at increased risk of readmission or death following discharge home. In the UK, following acute hospitalisation, around one third of older people with frailty are referred on for rehabilitation, termed 'intermediate care' services. Although this rehabilitation can reduce early readmission to hospital (< 30 days), recipients often do not feel ready to leave the service on discharge, suggesting possible incomplete recovery. Limited evidence suggests extended rehabilitation is of benefit in several conditions and there is preliminary evidence that progressive physical exercise can improve mobility and function for older people with frailty, and slow progression to disability. Our aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Home-based Older People's Exercise (HOPE) programme as extended rehabilitation for older people with frailty discharged home from hospital or intermediate care services after acute illness or injury. METHODS: A multi-centre individually randomised controlled trial, to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the HOPE programme. This individualised, graded and progressive 24-week exercise programme is delivered by NHS physiotherapy teams to people aged 65 and older with frailty, identified using the Clinical Frailty Scale, following discharge from acute hospitalisation and linked intermediate care rehabilitation pathways. The primary outcome is physical health-related quality of life, measured using the physical component summary score of the modified Short Form 36- item health questionnaire (SF36) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes include self-reported physical and mental health, functional independence, death, hospitalisations, care home admissions. Plans include health economic analyses and an embedded process evaluation. DISCUSSION: This trial seeks to determine if extended rehabilitation, via the HOPE programme, can improve physical health-related quality of life for older people with frailty following acute hospitalisation. Results will improve awareness of the rehabilitation needs of older people with frailty, and provide evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the targeted exercise intervention. There is potential for considerable benefit for health and social care services through widespread implementation of trial findings if clinical and cost-effectiveness is demonstrated. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN 13927531 . Registered on April 19, 2017.

Community-based complex interventions to sustain independence in older people, stratified by frailty: a protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Maintaining independence is a primary goal of community health and care services for older people, but there is currently insufficient guidance about which services to implement. Therefore, we aim to synthesise evidence on the effectiveness of community-based complex interventions to sustain independence for older people, including the effect of frailty, and group interventions to identify the best configurations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster RCTs of community-based complex interventions to sustain independence for older people living at home (mean age ≥65 years), compared with usual care or another complex intervention. We will search MEDLINE (1946 to September 2020), Embase (1947 to September 2020), CINAHL (1981 to September 2020), PsycINFO (1806 to September 2020), CENTRAL and clinical trial registries from inception to September 2020, without date/language restrictions, and scan included papers' reference lists. Main outcomes were: living at home, activities of daily living (basic/instrumental), home-care services usage, hospitalisation, care home admission, costs and cost effectiveness. Additional outcomes were: health status, depression, loneliness, falls and mortality. Interventions will be coded, summarised and grouped. An NMA using a multivariate random-effects model for each outcome separately will determine the relative effects of different complex interventions. For each outcome, we will produce summary effect estimates for each pair of treatments in the network, with 95% CI, ranking plots and measures, and the borrowing of strength statistic. Inconsistency will be examined using a 'design-by-treatment interaction' model. We will assess risk of bias (Cochrane tool V.2) and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation for NMA approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research will use aggregated, anonymised, published data. Findings will be reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. They will be disseminated to policy-makers, commissioners and providers, and via conferences and scientific journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019162195.

An extended stroke rehabilitation service for people who have had a stroke: the EXTRAS RCT.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence about the effectiveness of rehabilitation in meeting the longer-term needs of stroke patients and their carers. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS). DESIGN: A pragmatic, observer-blind, parallel-group, multicentre randomised controlled trial with embedded health economic and process evaluations. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) to receive EXTRAS or usual care. SETTING: Nineteen NHS study centres. PARTICIPANTS: Patients with a new stroke who received early supported discharge and their informal carers. INTERVENTIONS: Five EXTRAS reviews provided by an early supported discharge team member between 1 and 18 months post early supported discharge, usually over the telephone. Reviewers assessed rehabilitation needs, with goal-setting and action-planning. Control treatment was usual care post early supported discharge. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was performance in extended activities of daily living (Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale) at 24 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes at 12 and 24 months included patient mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), health status (Oxford Handicap Scale), experience of services and adverse events. For carers, secondary outcomes included carers' strain (Caregiver Strain Index) and experience of services. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using resource utilisation costs (adaptation of the Client Service Receipt Inventory) and quality-adjusted life-years. RESULTS: A total of 573 patients (EXTRAS, n = 285; usual care, n = 288) with 194 carers (EXTRAS, n = 103; usual care, n = 91) were randomised. Mean 24-month Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale scores were 40.0 (standard deviation 18.1) for EXTRAS (n = 219) and 37.2 (standard deviation 18.5) for usual care (n = 231), giving an adjusted mean difference of 1.8 (95% confidence interval -0.7 to 4.2). The mean intervention group Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores were not significantly different at 12 and 24 months. The intervention did not improve patient health status or carer strain. EXTRAS patients and carers reported greater satisfaction with some aspects of care. The mean cost of resource utilisation was lower in the intervention group: -£311 (95% confidence interval -£3292 to £2787), with a 68% chance of EXTRAS being cost-saving. EXTRAS was associated with 0.07 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.12) additional quality-adjusted life-years. At current conventional thresholds of willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year, there is a 90% chance that EXTRAS is cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: EXTRAS did not improve stroke survivors' performance in extended activities of daily living but did improve their overall satisfaction with services. Given the impact on costs and quality-adjusted life-years, there is a high chance that EXTRAS could be considered cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: Further research is required to identify whether or not community-based interventions can improve performance of extended activities of daily living, and to understand the improvements in health-related quality of life and costs seen by provision of intermittent longer-term specialist review. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45203373. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Early supported discharge enables stroke patients with mild or moderate disability to be discharged earlier than usual from hospital to continue rehabilitation at home. Randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that early supported discharge leads to increased independence for stroke survivors, and that early supported discharge is cost-effective. Early supported discharge is usually provided for up to 6 weeks and patients with ongoing physical, psychological or social needs are then referred to other services. In the UK, provision of longer-term rehabilitation is often limited. Lack of research evidence has meant that service development in this aspect of stroke care has lagged behind service development for acute care. This clinical trial evaluated an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS) that started when early supported discharge ended. Stroke survivors and their carers were randomly assigned to receive EXTRAS or usual NHS care. EXTRAS involved five rehabilitation reviews conducted over 18 months by an early supported discharge team member, usually over the telephone. Each review consisted of an assessment of current needs, goal-setting and action-planning, and sought to improve patients' abilities and confidence to undertake extended activities of daily living (mobility, kitchen and domestic tasks, and leisure activities). There were no specific assessments or actions for carers but it was important to evaluate the impact that the new service had on carers. Patients and carers were followed up for 2 years and information was collected about their activities, mood, quality of life and services received. EXTRAS did not improve stroke survivors' performance in extended activities of daily living. However, patients who received EXTRAS reported less anxiety and less depression than those who received usual care, and patients and carers were more satisfied with some aspects of their care. EXTRAS did not improve carers' quality of life or stress. Health economic analyses suggest that EXTRAS improved patients' quality of life and may be good value for money. Further research is needed to identify other treatments to address the longer-term consequences of stroke.

Supporting carers of stroke survivors to reduce carer burden: development of the Preparing is Caring intervention using Intervention Mapping.

BACKGROUND: Burden is well documented among carers of stroke survivors, yet current evidence is insufficient to determine if any strategies reduce this negative outcome. Existing interventions for carers of stroke survivors typically involve supporting carers according to their individual needs through face-to-face interactions and provision of information including workbooks or educational guides. To date, no interventions have been developed using a method which systematically incorporates evidence, behaviour change theories, and stakeholder involvement to change the behaviours of carers and relevant individuals who support carers. This study aimed to develop a programme plan for a theory and evidence-based intervention to reduce burden in carers of stroke survivors. METHODS: Informed by evidence from two systematic reviews and 33 qualitative interviews, the first four stages of Intervention Mapping were used to guide the intervention development process: 1) needs assessment; 2) identifying outcomes and objectives; 3) selecting theoretical methods and practical applications; and 4) creating a programme plan. Structured and facilitated involvement from stakeholders, including carers, researchers, and professionals from health and community services was integral to the intervention development process. Stakeholders helped to prioritise the focus of the intervention, develop the goals, outcomes and objectives for the programme, and generate and refine intervention ideas. RESULTS: Stakeholders prioritised the need for carers to feel prepared before and during the transition from hospital to home as key to reducing burden. The proposed intervention 'Preparing is Caring' targets this need and involves providing and signposting carers to relevant information and support for practical and emotional needs. This is to be delivered before, during, and immediately after the stroke survivor's transition from hospital to home by a person taking on a single point of contact role. It is comprised of multiple theory-based components including: training packages for information and support providers working with carers and wider staff teams, plus elements to support carers to feel prepared. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed a comprehensive programme plan for a multiple-component, theory and evidence informed behaviour change intervention aimed at preparing carers before and during the transition from hospital to home. Future work is required to refine, implement and evaluate the Preparing is Caring intervention.

Evaluation of an Extended Stroke Rehabilitation Service (EXTRAS): A Randomized Controlled Trial and Economic Analysis.

Background and Purpose- There is limited evidence to guide rehabilitation to meet the longer term needs of stroke survivors. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS) provided following early supported discharge were determined. Methods- EXTRAS was a pragmatic parallel-group observer-blind randomized controlled trial involving 19 UK centers. Patients with stroke were individually randomized to receive EXTRAS or usual care at discharge from early supported discharge. Five EXTRAS reviews were provided by an early supported discharge team member between one and 18 months, usually by telephone. Reviews consisted of a semi-structured interview assessing progress, rehabilitation needs, and service provision, with goal setting and action planning. The primary outcome was performance in extended activities of daily living (Nottingham EADL Scale) at 24 months post-randomization. The Nottingham EADL Scale is scored 0 to 66, with higher scores indicating better performance in these activities. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using resource utilization costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years. Analyses were intention to treat. Results- Between January 9, 2013 and October 26, 2015, 573 participants were randomized (EXTRAS, n=285; usual care, n=288). Mean 24 month Nottingham EADL Scale scores were EXTRAS (n=219) 40.0 (SD 18.1) and usual care (n=231) 37.2 (SD 18.5) giving an adjusted mean difference of 1.8 (95% CI, -0.7 to 4.2). 1155/1338 (86%) of expected EXTRAS reviews were undertaken. Over 24 months, the mean cost of resource utilization was lower in the intervention group: -£311 (-$450 [95% CI, -£3292 to £2787; -$4764 to $4033]). EXTRAS provided more Quality Adjusted Life Years (0.07 [95% CI, 0.01 to 0.12]). At current conventional thresholds of willingness to pay (£20 000 [$28 940] per Quality Adjusted Life Years), there was a 90% chance that EXTRAS could be considered cost-effective. Conclusions- EXTRAS did not significantly improve stroke survivors' performance in extended activities of daily living. However, given the impact on costs and Quality Adjusted Life Years, EXTRAS may be an affordable addition to improve stroke care. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: www.isrctn.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN45203373.

An intervention to support stroke survivors and their carers in the longer term (LoTS2Care): study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite the evidence that many stroke survivors report longer term unmet needs, the provision of longer term care is limited. To address this, we are conducting a programme of research to develop an evidence-based and replicable longer term care strategy. The developed complex intervention (named New Start), which includes needs identification, exploration of social networks and components of problem solving and self-management, was designed to improve quality of life by addressing unmet needs and increasing participation. METHODS/DESIGN: A multicentre, cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial designed to inform the design of a possible future definitive cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) and explore the potential clinical and cost-effectiveness of New Start. Ten stroke services across the UK will be randomised on a 1:1 basis either to implement New Start or continue with usual care only. New Start will be delivered by trained facilitators and will be offered to all stroke survivors within the services allocated to the intervention arm. Stroke survivors will be eligible for the trial if they are 4-6 months post-stroke and residing in the community. Carers (if available) will also be invited to take part. Invitation to participate will be initiated by post and outcome measures will be collected via postal questionnaires at 3, 6 and 9 months after recruitment. Outcome data relating to perceived health and disability, wellbeing and quality of life as well as unmet needs will be collected. A 'study within a trial' (SWAT) is planned to determine the most acceptable format in which to provide the postal questionnaires. Details of health and social care service usage will also be collected to inform the economic evaluation. The feasibility of recruiting services and stroke survivors to the trial and of collecting postal outcomes will be assessed and the potential for effectiveness will be investigated. An embedded process evaluation (reported separately) will assess implementation fidelity and explore and clarify causal assumptions regarding implementation. DISCUSSION: This feasibility trial with embedded process evaluation will allow us to gather important and detailed data regarding methodological and implementation issues to inform the design of a possible future definitive cRCT of this complex intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN38920246 . Registered 22 June 2016.

Community-based rehabilitation training after stroke: results of a pilot randomised controlled trial (ReTrain) investigating acceptability and feasibility.

OBJECTIVES: To assess acceptability and feasibility of trial processes and the Rehabilitation Training (ReTrain) intervention including an assessment of intervention fidelity. DESIGN: A two-group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial with parallel mixed methods process and economic evaluations. SETTING: Community settings across two sites in Devon. PARTICIPANTS: Eligible participants were: 18 years old or over, with a diagnosis of stroke and with self-reported mobility issues, no contraindications to physical activity, discharged from National Health Service or any other formal rehabilitation programme at least 1 month before, willing to be randomised to either control or ReTrain and attend the training venue, possessing cognitive capacity and communication ability sufficient to participate. Participants were individually randomised (1:1) via a computer-generated randomisation sequence minimised for time since stroke and level of functional disability. Only outcome assessors independent of the research team were blinded to group allocation. INTERVENTIONS: ReTrain comprised (1) an introductory one-to-one session; (2) ten, twice-weekly group classes with up to two trainers and eight clients; (3) a closing one-to-one session, followed by three drop-in sessions over the subsequent 3 months. Participants received a bespoke home-based training programme. All participants received treatment as usual. The control group received an exercise after stroke advice booklet. OUTCOME MEASURES: Candidate primary outcomes included functional mobility and physical activity. RESULTS: Forty-five participants were randomised (ReTrain=23; Control=22); data were available from 40 participants at 6 months of follow-up (ReTrain=21; Control=19) and 41 at 9 months of follow-up (ReTrain=21; Control=20). We demonstrated ability to recruit and retain participants. Participants were not burdened by the requirements of the study. We were able to calculate sample estimates for candidate primary outcomes and test procedures for process and health economic evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: All objectives were fulfilled and indicated that a definitive trial of ReTrain is feasible and acceptable. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02429180; Results.

Community-based Rehabilitation Training after stroke: protocol of a pilot randomised controlled trial (ReTrain).

INTRODUCTION: The Rehabilitation Training (ReTrain) intervention aims to improve functional mobility, adherence to poststroke exercise guidelines and quality of life for people after stroke. A definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) is required to assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness of ReTrain, which is based on Action for Rehabilitation from Neurological Injury (ARNI). The purpose of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of such a definitive trial and inform its design. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A 2-group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled external pilot trial with parallel mixed-methods process evaluation and economic evaluation. 48 participants discharged from clinical rehabilitation despite residual physical disability will be individually randomised 1:1 to ReTrain (25 sessions) or control (exercise advice booklet). Outcome assessment at baseline, 6 and 9 months include Rivermead Mobility Index; Timed Up and Go Test; modified Patient-Specific Functional Scale; 7-day accelerometry; Stroke Self-efficacy Questionnaire, exercise diary, Fatigue Assessment Scale, exercise beliefs and self-efficacy questionnaires, SF-12, EQ-5D-5L, Stroke Quality of Life, Carer Burden Index and Service Receipt Inventory. Feasibility, acceptability and process outcomes include recruitment and retention rates; with measurement burden and trial experiences being explored in qualitative interviews (20 participants, 3 intervention providers). Analyses include descriptive statistics, with 95% CI where appropriate; qualitative themes; intervention fidelity from videos and session checklists; rehearsal of health economic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: National Health Service (NHS) National Research Ethics Service approval granted in April 2015; recruitment started in June. Preliminary studies suggested low risk of serious adverse events; however (minor) falls, transitory muscle soreness and high levels of postexercise fatigue are expected. Outputs include pilot data to inform whether to proceed to a definitive RCT and support a funding application; finalised Trainer and Intervention Delivery manuals for multicentre replication of ReTrain; presentations at conferences, public involvement events; internationally recognised peer-reviewed journal publications, open access sources and media releases. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02429180; Pre-results.

Protocol for process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial of family-led rehabilitation post stroke (ATTEND) in India.

INTRODUCTION: We are undertaking a randomised controlled trial (fAmily led rehabiliTaTion aftEr stroke in INDia, ATTEND) evaluating training a family carer to enable maximal rehabilitation of patients with stroke-related disability; as a potentially affordable, culturally acceptable and effective intervention for use in India. A process evaluation is needed to understand how and why this complex intervention may be effective, and to capture important barriers and facilitators to its implementation. We describe the protocol for our process evaluation to encourage the development of in-process evaluation methodology and transparency in reporting. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The realist and RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance) frameworks informed the design. Mixed methods include semistructured interviews with health providers, patients and their carers, analysis of quantitative process data describing fidelity and dose of intervention, observations of trial set up and implementation, and the analysis of the cost data from the patients and their families perspective and programme budgets. These qualitative and quantitative data will be analysed iteratively prior to knowing the quantitative outcomes of the trial, and then triangulated with the results from the primary outcome evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The process evaluation has received ethical approval for all sites in India. In low-income and middle-income countries, the available human capital can form an approach to reducing the evidence practice gap, compared with the high cost alternatives available in established market economies. This process evaluation will provide insights into how such a programme can be implemented in practice and brought to scale. Through local stakeholder engagement and dissemination of findings globally we hope to build on patient-centred, cost-effective and sustainable models of stroke rehabilitation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CTRI/2013/04/003557.

The PiTSTOP study: a feasibility cluster randomized trial of delirium prevention in care homes for older people.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: delirium is a distressing but potentially preventable condition common in older people in long-term care. It is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, functional decline, hospitalization and significant healthcare costs. Multicomponent interventions, addressing delirium risk factors, have been shown to reduce delirium by one-third in hospitals. It is not known whether this approach is also effective in long-term care. In previous work, we designed a bespoke delirium prevention intervention, called 'Stop Delirium!' In preparation for a definitive trial of Stop Delirium, we sought to address key aspects of trial design for the particular circumstances of care homes. DESIGN: a cluster randomized feasibility study with an embedded process evaluation. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: residents of 14 care homes for older people in one metropolitan district in the UK. INTERVENTION: Stop Delirium!: a 16-month-enhanced educational package to support care home staff to address key delirium risk factors. Control homes received usual care. MEASUREMENTS: we collected data to determine the following: recruitment and attrition; delirium rates and variability between homes; feasibility of measuring delirium, resource use, quality of life, hospital admissions and falls; and intervention implementation and adherence. RESULTS: two-thirds (215) of eligible care home residents were recruited. One-month delirium prevalence was 4.0% in intervention and 7.1% in control homes. Proposed outcome measurements were feasible, although our approach appeared to underestimate delirium. Health economic evaluation was feasible using routinely collected data. CONCLUSION: a definitive trial of delirium prevention in long-term care is needed but will require some further design modifications and pilot work.

A qualitative exploration of self-reported unmet need one year after stroke.

PURPOSE: Stroke survivors consistently report longer-term problems after stroke, suggesting their needs are not being met. We developed a questionnaire to identify stroke-survivor unmet needs. Preliminary questionnaire testing showed that despite residual impairment, nearly one third of respondents reported no/low unmet need. This qualitative study aims to gain insight into why stroke survivors report low/no unmet needs. METHOD: People who self-reported zero or one unmet need were purposively sampled and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 participants. Identification and management of current problems were discussed and thematic analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: Participants did not report having unmet need. Despite this, all participants identified current issues or problems. Living with problems while reporting no/low unmet need is explained through: acceptance of changed circumstances; making comparisons with other people and circumstances; valuing pride, determination or independence; and viewing issues in the context of their expectations and experiences of services. Additionally, all participants were receiving some support. CONCLUSIONS: Self-identification of unmet needs is complex. Further investigation could explore the factors which enable stroke survivors to appropriately identify and experience no unmet needs, and whether these could be applied to reduce unmet needs of others. Implications for Rehabilitation Despite self-reporting no/low unmet need, survivors of stroke may still be experiencing difficulties in their daily lives. Stroke-survivor-identified low unmet need is influenced by complex factors including: acceptance; expectations of services; and comparisons with other people, which Health and Social Care professionals have a role in understanding. Health professionals could assess unmet need by using tools as a guide, supported by individual conversation. Factors which enable some stroke survivors to appropriately identify and experience no/low unmet need could be further explored, and considered as strategies to reduce unmet needs of others.

A systematic review of the economic evidence for interventions for family carers of stroke patients.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the economic evidence for interventions aimed at family carers of stroke patients. DATA SOURCES: Searches (limited to those published in English since 1990) were performed in key databases along with hand searches of relevant papers. REVIEW METHODS: Papers were restricted to studies including any economic data (broadly defined) for any intervention targeting carers explicitly or explicitly referring to a carer element, beyond involving carers in the care or intervention for patients (i.e. more than just carers being invited to observe an intervention targeted at the patient). Two reviewers independently screened full papers and extracted data using guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (cohort studies), the Delphi list (randomised controlled trials) and guidelines on economic quality from the British Medical Journal. Data were reviewed descriptively as meta analyses were inappropriate due to non-comparability of studies. RESULTS: Ten papers were included in the review. These were heterogeneous in their design, intervention and economic analyses making comparison difficult. Only three of the ten papers included economic evaluations. All three reported that the intervention was less costly and had better or equivalent outcomes than the control comparator although two of these were based on the same intervention using the same dataset. CONCLUSION: There is some limited evidence that interventions for family carers of stroke patients are effective and cost effective. However, due to variation in the types of interventions examined, little can be concluded regarding implications for clinical practice.

Prevention of delirium (POD) for older people in hospital: study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is the most frequent complication among older people following hospitalisation. Delirium may be prevented in about one-third of patients using a multicomponent intervention. However, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service has no routine delirium prevention care systems. We have developed the Prevention of Delirium Programme, a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention and implementation process. We have successfully carried out a pilot study to test the feasibility and acceptability of implementation of the programme. We are now undertaking preliminary testing of the programme. METHODS/DESIGN: The Prevention of Delirium Study is a multicentre, cluster randomised feasibility study designed to explore the potential effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Prevention of Delirium Programme. Sixteen elderly care medicine and orthopaedic/trauma wards in eight National Health Service acute hospitals will be randomised to receive the Prevention of Delirium Programme or usual care. Patients will be eligible for the trial if they have been admitted to a participating ward and are aged 65 years or over. The primary objectives of the study are to provide a preliminary estimate of the effectiveness of the Prevention of Delirium Programme as measured by the incidence of new onset delirium, assess the variability of the incidence of new-onset delirium, estimate the intracluster correlation coefficient and likely cluster size, assess barriers to the delivery of the Prevention of Delirium Programme system of care, assess compliance with the Prevention of Delirium Programme system of care, estimate recruitment and follow-up rates, assess the degree of contamination due to between-ward staff movements, and investigate differences in financial costs and benefits between the Prevention of Delirium Programme system of care and standard practice. Secondary objectives are to investigate differences in the number, severity and length of delirium episodes (including persistent delirium); length of stay in hospital; in-hospital mortality; destination at discharge; health-related quality of life and health resource use; physical and social independence; anxiety and depression; and patient experience. DISCUSSION: This feasibility study will be used to gather data to inform the design of a future definitive randomised controlled trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN01187372 . Registered 13 March 2014.

Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial: Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of a System of Longer-Term Stroke Care.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: We developed a new postdischarge system of care comprising a structured assessment covering longer-term problems experienced by patients with stroke and their carers, linked to evidence-based treatment algorithms and reference guides (the longer-term stroke care system of care) to address the poor longer-term recovery experienced by many patients with stroke. METHODS: A pragmatic, multicentre, cluster randomized controlled trial of this system of care. Eligible patients referred to community-based Stroke Care Coordinators were randomized to receive the new system of care or usual practice. The primary outcome was improved patient psychological well-being (General Health Questionnaire-12) at 6 months; secondary outcomes included functional outcomes for patients, carer outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Follow-up was through self-completed postal questionnaires at 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Thirty-two stroke services were randomized (29 participated); 800 patients (399 control; 401 intervention) and 208 carers (100 control; 108 intervention) were recruited. In intention to treat analysis, the adjusted difference in patient General Health Questionnaire-12 mean scores at 6 months was -0.6 points (95% confidence interval, -1.8 to 0.7; P=0.394) indicating no evidence of statistically significant difference between the groups. Costs of Stroke Care Coordinator inputs, total health and social care costs, and quality-adjusted life year gains at 6 months, 12 months, and over the year were similar between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: This robust trial demonstrated no benefit in clinical or cost-effectiveness outcomes associated with the new system of care compared with usual Stroke Care Coordinator practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN 67932305.

FAmily-Led RehabiliTaTion aftEr Stroke in INDia: the ATTEND pilot study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this pilot study was to determine the feasibility of a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial in India of a family-led, trained caregiver-delivered, home-based rehabilitation intervention vs. routine care. METHODS: A prospective, randomized (within seven-days of hospital admission), blinded outcome assessor, controlled trial of structured home-based rehabilitation delivered by trained and protocol-guided family caregivers (intervention) vs. routine care alone (control) was conducted in patients with residual disability. Key feasibility measures were recruitment, acceptance and adherence to assessment procedures, and follow-up of participants over six-months. CTRI/2014/10/005133. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients from the stroke unit at Christian Medical College, Ludhiana were recruited over nine-months. Recruitment was feasible and accepted by patients and their carers. Important observations were made regarding potential unblinding of the participants, contamination of therapy between the randomized groups, organization of home visits, and resources required for a multicenter study. CONCLUSION: The pilot study established the feasibility of conducting a large-scale study of family-led, trained caregiver-delivered, home-based stroke rehabilitation in a low resource setting. The main phase of the trial 'ATTEND' is currently underway in over 10 centers in India.