Mayo 2008

Methods	RCT
Participants	Recruited from 5 acute care hospitals in Canada Inclusion criteria: all persons returning home directly from the acute care hospital after a first or recurrent stroke with any of the following criteria indicating a specific need for healthcare supervision postdischarge (lives alone, mobility problem requiring assistive device, physical assistance or supervision, mild cognitive deficit, dysphagia, incontinence, social service consultation during acute hospitalisation, or need for postdischarge medical management for diabetes, congestive heart failure, ischaemic heart disease, arthritis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, atrial fibrillation, kidney disease, peripheral vascular disease) Exclusion criteria: people discharged to an inpatient rehabilitation facility or to long‐term care Age, years: telerehabiltation group = 70 (SD 14.5), control group = 72 (SD 12.95) Gender: telerehabilitation group 67% male, control group 55% male Time poststroke: telerehabilitation group 12 (SD 11.7 days), control group 13 (SD 15.7 days)
Interventions	Telerehabilitation intervention: received case management (defined as a 'collaborative process of assessment, planning, facilitation and advocacy for options and services to meet an individual's health needs through communication and available resources to promote quality cost‐effective outcomes'). Managed through home visits and telephone contacts for a period of 6 weeks. The nurse established contact with the GP and provided 24‐hour contact. Interventions included surveillance, information exchange, medication management, health system guidance, active listening, family support, teaching and risk identification Control intervention: participant and family were instructed to make an appointment with their local GP
Outcomes	Timing of outcome assessment: baseline, post‐intervention and 6‐month follow‐up Measures: reintegration to normal living index, Barthel Index, gait speed, Timed Up and Go test, SF‐36, EQ5D, Geriatric Depression Scale, health service utilisation
Notes
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Reported that 'sealed envelopes' were used
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Blinded outcome assessor
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Few instances of missing data. Balanced attrition across groups. ITT analyses conducted. Multiple imputation used for missing data
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Unclear risk	Not able to access protocol
Other bias	Low risk	None apparent