Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36129364›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society2023

Implementation of increased physical therapy intensity for improving walking after stroke: Walk 'n watch protocol for a multisite stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Sue Peters, Shannon B Lim, Mark T Bayley, Krista Best, Louise A Connell, Hélène Corriveau, Sarah J Donkers, Sean P Dukelow, Tara D Klassen, Marie-Hélène Milot and 5 more

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
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

15 authors.

Sue PetersSchool of Physical Therapy, University of Western Ontario, London, ON, Canada.
Shannon B LimRehabilitation Research Program, G.F. Strong Rehabilitation Centre and Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Mark T BayleyDivision of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Toronto and KITE Research Institute University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7860-9463
Krista BestIntégré Universitaire de Santé et de Services Sociaux de La Capitale-Nationale and Department of Rehabilitation, Université Laval, Quebec, QC, Canada.
Louise A ConnellAllied Health Research Unit, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK.
Hélène CorriveauSchool of Rehabilitation, Faculté de médecine et des sciences de la santé and Research Center on Aging, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Sarah J DonkersSchool of Rehabilitation Science, College of Medicine, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK, Canada.
Sean P DukelowDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Tara D KlassenRehabilitation Research Program, G.F. Strong Rehabilitation Centre and Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Marie-Hélène MilotSchool of Rehabilitation, Faculté de médecine et des sciences de la santé and Research Center on Aging, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Brodie M SakakibaraDepartment of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Lisa SheehyBruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Hubert WongSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia and Centre for Health Evaluation & Outcomes Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Jennifer YaoDivision of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of British Columbia and G.F. Strong Rehabilitation Centre, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Janice J EngRehabilitation Research Program, G.F. Strong Rehabilitation Centre and Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-2093-0788

Funding

CIHR FDN 143340
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleClinical practice guidelines support structured, progressive protocols for improving walking after stroke. Yet, practice is slow to change, evidenced by the little amount of walking activity in stroke rehabilitation units. Our recent study (n = 75) found that a structured, progressive protocol integrated with typical daily physical therapy improved walking and quality-of-life measures over usual care. Research therapists progressed the intensity of exercise by using heart rate and step counters worn by the participants with stroke during therapy. To have the greatest impact, our next step is to undertake an implementation trial to change practice across stroke units where we enable the entire unit to use the protocol as part of standard of care.

aimsWhat is the effect of introducing structured, progressive exercise (termed the Walk 'n Watch protocol) to the standard of care on the primary outcome of walking in adult participants with stroke over the hospital inpatient rehabilitation period? Secondary outcomes will be evaluated and include quality of life. METHODS AND SAMPLE SIZE ESTIMATES: This national, multisite clinical trial will randomize 12 sites using a stepped-wedge design where each site will be randomized to deliver Usual Care initially for 4, 8, 12, or 16 months (three sites for each duration). Then, each site will switch to the Walk 'n Watch phase for the remaining duration of a total 20-month enrolment period. Each participant will be exposed to either Usual Care or Walk 'n Watch. The trial will enroll a total of 195 participants with stroke to achieve a power of 80% with a Type I error rate of 5%, allowing for 20% dropout. Participants will be medically stable adults post-stroke and able to take five steps with a maximum physical assistance from one therapist. The Walk 'n Watch protocol focuses on completing a minimum of 30 min of weight-bearing, walking-related activities (at the physical therapists' discretion) that progressively increase in intensity informed by activity trackers measuring heart rate and step number. STUDY OUTCOME(S): The primary outcome will be the change in walking endurance, measured by the 6-Minute Walk Test, from baseline (T1) to 4 weeks (T2). This change will be compared across Usual Care and Walk 'n Watch phases using a linear mixed-effects model. Additional physical, cognitive, and quality of life outcomes will be measured at T1, T2, and 12 months post-stroke (T3) by a blinded assessor. DISCUSSION: The implementation of stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial enables the protocol to be tested under real-world conditions, involving all clinicians on the unit. It will result in all sites and all clinicians on the unit to gain expertise in protocol delivery. Hence, a deliberate outcome of the trial is facilitating changes in best practice to improve outcomes for participants with stroke in the trial and for the many participants with stroke admitted after the trial ends.

Indexed as

StrokeStroke RehabilitationAdultExercise TherapyHumansPhysical Therapy ModalitiesQuality of LifeRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomeWalkingexercisegaitoutcomesRehabilitationstroke

Identifiers

PMID36129364
PMCPMC9806455

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.