Allen 2002.
| Study characteristics | ||
| Methods | RCT Unit of randomisation: participant |
|
| Participants | Place of recruitment: hospital acute stroke department Numbers randomised: total: 96 (I: 47; C: 46) % Completing final follow‐up: 76% Inclusion criteria: ischaemic stroke or TIA; discharged to home or short‐term rehabilitation facility (for < 1 month); no other illnesses that would dominate post‐discharge care; Rankin Scale score ≤ 3; Exclusion criteria: Rankin score of 4 or 5; discharged to long‐term care facility Type of stroke: ischaemic stroke (I: 70%; C: 71%); TIA (I: 30%; C: 29%) Mean age (SE): I: 69 (1.7); C: 72 (1.5) Gender (% women): I: 57; C: 54 Ethnicity (% African‐American): I: 30%; C: 20% Socio‐economic or socio‐demographic status: not reported |
|
| Interventions | Intervention details (components, length, frequency): APN telephoned patients 3 to 7 days post‐discharge to assess needs and deliver education; APN conducted home assessment within 1 month post‐discharge; individualised patient care plans developed by interdisciplinary team using evidence‐based recommendations; APN implemented treatment plan and conducted follow‐up assessments; primary care physicians provided with care plans/evidence‐based recommendations Location: community Mode of delivery: home visits Personnel responsible for delivery: advanced practice nurse and interdisciplinary team Timing post‐stroke: discharge home Control: usual care provided by primary care physician Pre‐discharge care (I and C): interdisciplinary care and stroke education |
|
| Outcomes | 3 months: BP: mean mmHg BP > 140/90; proportion of participants re‐hospitalised for stroke | |
| General Information | Funding: not reported Country of origin: USA Publication language: English |
|
| Notes | Analysis method: not stated Risk of bias: unclear |
|
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | "Patients were assigned to the intervention or to usual postdischarge care by drawing consecutive concealed tickets that were randomized within permuted blocks of 10" |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Not reported |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Unclear risk | Missing data not reported by group Attrition: 1 became cognitively impaired; 2 moved out of state; 3 moved to nursing home; 5 died; 12 refused follow up visit Judgement: not enough information to permit judgement (missing data not reported by group) |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information (protocol not obtained) |
| Other bias | Low risk | The study appears to be free of other sources of bias |