4.5 Article

Does a short period of rehabilitation in the home setting facilitate functioning after stroke?: A randomized controlled trial

期刊

CLINICAL REHABILITATION
卷 20, 期 12, 页码 1038-1049

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0269215506071230

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess the effect of three weeks of rehabilitation in the home setting for younger patients with stroke with the aim of improving activity level. Design: A randomized controlled study with blinded evaluations at discharge, three weeks, three months and one year after discharge. Setting: Home of the patient or the ordinary day rehabilitation clinic at the university hospital. Subjects: Fifty-eight patients (median age 53 years) consecutively discharged from inpatient rehabilitation with a first occurrence of stroke participated in training directly after discharge. Intervention: Rehabilitation was given for 9 hours/week over three weeks. The home group received individually tailored training, based on the patient's needs and desires, with a focus on activities in their natural context. Support and information were also given. The intervention in the day clinic group was aimed mainly at improved functions. Main measures: The main outcome was activity, assessed with the Assessment of Motor and Process Skill (AMPS). The impairment level was also evaluated. Costs were estimated. Result: There were no significant differences between the groups on any of the four assessments. However, there seemed to be an earlier improvement on some measures (including AMPS) for the home group. For both groups there was a greater improvement on the activity level than on the impairment level. The costs of the home group were less than half of the costs of the day clinic group. Conclusion: With the present results, both rehabilitation programmes could be recommended, however, further studies are needed to define patients who may specifically benefit from the home rehabilitation programme. Costs should be taken into consideration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据