Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25657106›Full record

Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2015

An occupational therapy intervention for residents with stroke related disabilities in UK care homes (OTCH): cluster randomised controlled trial.

Catherine M Sackley, Marion F Walker, Christopher R Burton, Caroline L Watkins, Jonathan Mant, Andrea K Roalfe, Keith Wheatley, Bart Sheehan, Leslie Sharp, Katie E Stant and 6 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIIMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Catherine M SackleyDepartment of Physiotherapy, King's College London, London, UK.
Marion F WalkerDivision of Rehabilitation and Ageing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Christopher R BurtonSchool of Healthcare Sciences, Bangor University, Bangor, Gwynedd, UK.
Caroline L WatkinsSchool of Health, UCLan, Preston, Lancashire, UK.
Jonathan MantPrimary Care Unit, Department of Public Health & Primary Care, Cambridge, UK.
Andrea K RoalfePrimary Care Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Keith WheatleyCancer Research UK Clinical Trials Unit, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Bart SheehanDirectorate of Acute Medicine and Rehabilitation, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Leslie SharpFaculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
Katie E StantPrimary Care Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Joanna Fletcher-SmithDivision of Rehabilitation and Ageing, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
Kerry SteelOccupational Therapy, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Kate WildeFaculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
Lisa IrvineFaculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK.
Guy PeryerFaculty of Medical and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK g.peryer@uea.ac.uk.
OTCH trial investigators

Funding

Department of Health 08/14/30
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the clinical efficacy of an established programme of occupational therapy in maintaining functional activity and reducing further health risks from inactivity in care home residents living with stroke sequelae.

designPragmatic, parallel group, cluster randomised controlled trial.

setting228 care homes (>10 beds each), both with and without the provision of nursing care, local to 11 trial administrative centres across the United Kingdom.

participants1042 care home residents with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack, including those with language and cognitive impairments, not receiving end of life care. 114 homes (n=568 residents, 64% from homes providing nursing care) were allocated to the intervention arm and 114 homes (n=474 residents, 65% from homes providing nursing care) to standard care (control arm). Participating care homes were randomised between May 2010 and March 2012.

interventionTargeted three month programme of occupational therapy, delivered by qualified occupational therapists and assistants, involving patient centred goal setting, education of care home staff, and adaptations to the environment.

main outcome measuresPrimary outcome at the participant level: scores on the Barthel index of activities of daily living at three months post-randomisation. Secondary outcome measures at the participant level: Barthel index scores at six and 12 months post-randomisation, and scores on the Rivermead mobility index, geriatric depression scale-15, and EuroQol EQ-5D-3L questionnaire, at all time points.

results64% of the participants were women and 93% were white, with a mean age of 82.9 years. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups for all measures, personal characteristics, and diagnostic tests. Overall, 2538 occupational therapy visits were made to 498 participants in the intervention arm (mean 5.1 visits per participant). No adverse events attributable to the intervention were recorded. 162 (11%) died before the primary outcome time point, and 313 (30%) died over the 12 months of the trial. The primary outcome measure did not differ significantly between the treatment arms. The adjusted mean difference in Barthel index score at three months was 0.19 points higher in the intervention arm (95% confidence interval -0.33 to 0.70, P=0.48). Secondary outcome measures also showed no significant differences at all time points.

conclusionsThis large phase III study provided no evidence of benefit for the provision of a routine occupational therapy service, including staff training, for care home residents living with stroke related disabilities. The established three month individualised course of occupational therapy targeting stroke related disabilities did not have an impact on measures of functional activity, mobility, mood, or health related quality of life, at all observational time points. Providing and targeting ameliorative care in this clinically complex population requires alternative strategies.Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN00757750.

Indexed as

Nursing HomesStroke RehabilitationActivities of Daily LivingAged, 80 and overCluster AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleOccupational TherapyPersons with DisabilitiesQuality of LifeStrokeSurveys and QuestionnairesSurvival RateTreatment OutcomeUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID25657106
PMCPMC4353312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.