4.6 Article

ImProving Outcomes after STroke (POST): results from the randomized clinical pilot trial

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STROKE
Volume 8, Issue 8, Pages 707-710

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2012.00913.x

Keywords

clinical trial; intervention; ischemic stroke; prevention; stroke; therapy

Funding

  1. Northern Sydney and Central Coast Area Health Research Fund
  2. National Stroke Foundation Veolia Environmental Services Research grant
  3. Brain Foundation of Australia
  4. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Public Health (Australia) [402849]
  5. NHMRC [632925]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background One in three patients experience depression after stroke. An effective strategy to prevent depression after stroke that could be economically delivered to most patients with a low likelihood of adverse events is needed. Methods In a randomized trial conducted in New South Wales, Australia, a postcard was sent monthly to participants (n=100) for five-months following hospital discharge after stroke (plus usual care) and compared with usual care (n=101). Ethical approval was obtained to withhold information about the intervention and primary outcome from participants during the consent process. Results No significant difference was seen in the proportion of participants with depression in the intervention group (1/88) vs. the control group (3/76) (relative risk 0 center dot 29, 95% confidence interval 0 center dot 03-2 center dot 71) at six-months. No significant differences were seen on Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) depression and anxiety sub-scale scores, quality of life, or activities of daily living; however, many (47/100) responded positively to the postcards. Conclusions Although this simple postcard intervention did not significantly reduce the proportion of participants experiencing high HADS depression sub-scale scores after stroke, it may be an effective way to engage with people after stroke following hospital discharge.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available