Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2020 May;24(24):1–202. doi: 10.3310/hta24240

An extended stroke rehabilitation service for people who have had a stroke: the EXTRAS RCT.

Lisa Shaw, Nawaraj Bhattarai, Robin Cant, Avril Drummond, Gary A Ford, Anne Forster, Richard Francis, Katie Hills, Denise Howel, Anne Marie Laverty, Christopher McKevitt, Peter McMeekin, Christopher Price, Elaine Stamp, Eleanor Stevens, Luke Vale, Helen Rodgers
PMCID: PMC7294395  PMID: 32468989

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There is limited evidence about the effectiveness of rehabilitation in meeting the longer-term needs of stroke patients and their carers.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS).

DESIGN

A pragmatic, observer-blind, parallel-group, multicentre randomised controlled trial with embedded health economic and process evaluations. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) to receive EXTRAS or usual care.

SETTING

Nineteen NHS study centres.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with a new stroke who received early supported discharge and their informal carers.

INTERVENTIONS

Five EXTRAS reviews provided by an early supported discharge team member between 1 and 18 months post early supported discharge, usually over the telephone. Reviewers assessed rehabilitation needs, with goal-setting and action-planning. Control treatment was usual care post early supported discharge.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was performance in extended activities of daily living (Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale) at 24 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes at 12 and 24 months included patient mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), health status (Oxford Handicap Scale), experience of services and adverse events. For carers, secondary outcomes included carers' strain (Caregiver Strain Index) and experience of services. Cost-effectiveness was estimated using resource utilisation costs (adaptation of the Client Service Receipt Inventory) and quality-adjusted life-years.

RESULTS

A total of 573 patients (EXTRAS, n = 285; usual care, n = 288) with 194 carers (EXTRAS, n = 103; usual care, n = 91) were randomised. Mean 24-month Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living Scale scores were 40.0 (standard deviation 18.1) for EXTRAS (n = 219) and 37.2 (standard deviation 18.5) for usual care (n = 231), giving an adjusted mean difference of 1.8 (95% confidence interval -0.7 to 4.2). The mean intervention group Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores were not significantly different at 12 and 24 months. The intervention did not improve patient health status or carer strain. EXTRAS patients and carers reported greater satisfaction with some aspects of care. The mean cost of resource utilisation was lower in the intervention group: -£311 (95% confidence interval -£3292 to £2787), with a 68% chance of EXTRAS being cost-saving. EXTRAS was associated with 0.07 (95% confidence interval 0.01 to 0.12) additional quality-adjusted life-years. At current conventional thresholds of willingness to pay for a quality-adjusted life-year, there is a 90% chance that EXTRAS is cost-effective.

CONCLUSIONS

EXTRAS did not improve stroke survivors' performance in extended activities of daily living but did improve their overall satisfaction with services. Given the impact on costs and quality-adjusted life-years, there is a high chance that EXTRAS could be considered cost-effective.

FUTURE WORK

Further research is required to identify whether or not community-based interventions can improve performance of extended activities of daily living, and to understand the improvements in health-related quality of life and costs seen by provision of intermittent longer-term specialist review.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN45203373.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Plain language summary

Early supported discharge enables stroke patients with mild or moderate disability to be discharged earlier than usual from hospital to continue rehabilitation at home. Randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that early supported discharge leads to increased independence for stroke survivors, and that early supported discharge is cost-effective. Early supported discharge is usually provided for up to 6 weeks and patients with ongoing physical, psychological or social needs are then referred to other services. In the UK, provision of longer-term rehabilitation is often limited. Lack of research evidence has meant that service development in this aspect of stroke care has lagged behind service development for acute care. This clinical trial evaluated an extended stroke rehabilitation service (EXTRAS) that started when early supported discharge ended. Stroke survivors and their carers were randomly assigned to receive EXTRAS or usual NHS care. EXTRAS involved five rehabilitation reviews conducted over 18 months by an early supported discharge team member, usually over the telephone. Each review consisted of an assessment of current needs, goal-setting and action-planning, and sought to improve patients’ abilities and confidence to undertake extended activities of daily living (mobility, kitchen and domestic tasks, and leisure activities). There were no specific assessments or actions for carers but it was important to evaluate the impact that the new service had on carers. Patients and carers were followed up for 2 years and information was collected about their activities, mood, quality of life and services received. EXTRAS did not improve stroke survivors’ performance in extended activities of daily living. However, patients who received EXTRAS reported less anxiety and less depression than those who received usual care, and patients and carers were more satisfied with some aspects of their care. EXTRAS did not improve carers’ quality of life or stress. Health economic analyses suggest that EXTRAS improved patients’ quality of life and may be good value for money. Further research is needed to identify other treatments to address the longer-term consequences of stroke.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Rodgers H, Howel D, Bhattarai N, Cant R, Drummond A, Ford GA, et al. Evaluation of an Extended Stroke Rehabilitation Service (EXTRAS): a randomized controlled trial and economic analysis. Stroke 2019;50:3561–8. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.024876 doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.119.024876. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Wade DT. Global Disability Measures, Extended ADL and Social Interaction. In Wade DT, editor. Measurement in Neurological Rehabilitation. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1992. pp. 83–8.
  3. Stroke Association. Current, Future and Avoidable Costs of Stroke in the UK. 2017.
  4. Lee S, Shafe AC, Cowie MR. UK stroke incidence, mortality and cardiovascular risk management 1999–2008: time-trend analysis from the General Practice Research Database. BMJ Open 2011;1:e000269. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000269 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  5. Stroke Association. State of the Nation. Stroke Statistics January 2017. 2017.
  6. Murray J, Young J, Forster A. Review of longer-term problems after a disabling stroke. Rev Clin Gerontol 2007;17:277–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959259808002608 doi: 10.1017/S0959259808002608. [DOI]
  7. Hartman-Maeir A, Soroker N, Ring H, Avni N, Katz N. Activities, participation and satisfaction one-year post stroke. Disabil Rehabil 2007;29:559–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280600924996 doi: 10.1080/09638280600924996. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. McKevitt C, Fudge N, Redfern J, Sheldenkar A, Crichton S, Wolfe C. UK Stroke Survivor Needs Survey. London: The Stroke Association; 2010.
  9. McKevitt C, Fudge N, Redfern J, Sheldenkar A, Crichton S, Rudd AR, et al. Self-reported long-term needs after stroke. Stroke 2011;42:1398–403. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.598839 doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.598839. [DOI] [PubMed]
  10. Sumathipala K, Radcliffe E, Sadler E, Wolfe CD, McKevitt C. Identifying the long-term needs of stroke survivors using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Chronic Illn 2012;8:31–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742395311423848 doi: 10.1177/1742395311423848. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Stroke Association. Struggling to Recover. Life After Stroke Campaign Briefing. 2012.
  12. Pindus DM, Mullis R, Lim L, Wellwood I, Rundell AV, Abd Aziz NA, Mant J. Stroke survivors’ and informal caregivers’ experiences of primary care and community healthcare services – a systematic review and meta-ethnography. PLOS ONE 2018;13:e0192533. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192533 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0192533. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  13. Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet 2011;377:1693–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60325-5 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60325-5. [DOI] [PubMed]
  14. Langhorne P, Baylan S, Early Supported Discharge Trialists. Early supported discharge services for people with acute stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;7:CD000443. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000443.pub4 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000443.pub4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  15. Stroke Unit Trialists Collaboration. Organised inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;9:CD000197. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000197.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  16. Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. National Clinical Guideline for Stroke 5th Edition. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2016.
  17. Fisher RJ, Gaynor C, Kerr M, Langhorne P, Anderson C, Bautz-Holter E, et al. A consensus on stroke: early supported discharge. Stroke 2011;42:1392–7. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.606285 doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.110.606285. [DOI] [PubMed]
  18. Royal College of Physicians. Sentinal Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP) Changes Over Time: 4 Years of Data April 2013 – March 2017. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2017.
  19. Royal College of Physicians. Sentinal Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP) Acute Organisational Audit Report November 2016. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2016.
  20. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Stroke Rehabilitation in Adults. Clinical Guideline CG162. London: NICE; 2013. [PubMed]
  21. Aziz NA, Leonardi-Bee J, Phillips M, Gladman JR, Legg L, Walker MF. Therapy-based rehabilitation services for patients living at home more than one year after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;2:CD005952. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005952.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005952.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  22. National Audit Office. Department of Health: Progress in Improving Stroke Care. London: National Audit Office; 2010.
  23. Ellis G, Mant J, Langhorne P, Dennis M, Winner S. Stroke liaison workers for stroke patients and carers: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;5:CD005066. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005066.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005066.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  24. Outpatient Service Trialists. Therapy-based rehabilitation services for stroke patients at home. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;1:CD002925. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002925. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  25. Care Quality Commission. Supporting Life After Stroke. A Review of Services for People who have had a Stroke and their Carers. London: Care Quality Commission; 2011.
  26. Veerbeek JM, van Wegen E, van Peppen R, van der Wees PJ, Hendriks E, Rietberg M, Kwakkel G. What is the evidence for physical therapy poststroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLOS ONE 2014;9:e87987. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0087987 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087987. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  27. Barclay RE, Stevenson TJ, Poluha W, Ripat J, Nett C, Srikesavan CS. Interventions for improving community ambulation in individuals with stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;3:CD010200. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010200.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010200.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  28. Ferrarello F, Baccini M, Rinaldi LA, Cavallini MC, Mossello E, Masotti G, et al. Efficacy of physiotherapy interventions late after stroke: a meta-analysis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2011;82:136–43. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.2009.196428 doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2009.196428. [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. Fryer CE, Luker JA, McDonnell MN, Hillier SL. Self management programmes for quality of life in people with stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;8:CD010442. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD010442.pub2 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010442.pub2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  30. Forster A, Young J, Chapman K, Nixon J, Patel A, Holloway I, et al. Cluster randomized controlled trial: clinical and cost-effectiveness of a system of longer-term stroke care. Stroke 2015;46:2212–19. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.008585 doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.115.008585. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  31. Royal College of Physicians. Sentinal Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP) Post-acute Organisational Audit Phase 1: Post-acute Stroke Service Commissioning Audit. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2015. URL: www.strokeaudit.org/Documents/National/PostAcuteOrg/2015/2015-PAOrgGenericReport.aspx
  32. Rodgers H, Shaw L, Cant R, Drummond A, Ford GA, Forster A, et al. Evaluating an extended rehabilitation service for stroke patients (EXTRAS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. Trials 2015;16:205. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-015-0704-3 doi: 10.1186/s13063-015-0704-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  33. Nouri FM, Lincoln NB. An extended activities of daily living scale for stroke patients. Clin Rehabil 1987;1:301–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/026921558700100409 doi: 10.1177/026921558700100409. [DOI]
  34. Bamford JM, Sandercock PA, Warlow CP, Slattery J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1989;20:828. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.20.6.828 doi: 10.1161/01.STR.20.6.828. [DOI] [PubMed]
  35. Bamford J, Sandercock P, Dennis M, Burn J, Warlow C. Classification and natural history of clinically identifiable subtypes of cerebral infarction. Lancet 1991;337:1521–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-6736(91)93206-O doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)93206-O. [DOI] [PubMed]
  36. Brott T, Adams HP Jr, Olinger CP, Marler JR, Barsan WG, Biller J, et al. Measurements of acute cerebral infarction: a clinical examination scale. Stroke 1989;20:864–70. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.20.7.864 doi: 10.1161/01.STR.20.7.864. [DOI] [PubMed]
  37. Beecham J, Knapp M. Costing Psychiatric Interventions. In Thornicroft G editor. Measuring Mental Health Needs. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001. pp. 200–24.
  38. Forster A, Dickerson J, Young J, Patel A, Kalra L, Nixon J, et al. A cluster randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a structured training programme for caregivers of inpatients after stroke: the TRACS trial. Health Technol Assess 2013;17(46). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta17460 doi: 10.3310/hta17460. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  39. Patel A, Knapp M, Evans A, Perez I, Kalra L. Training care givers of stroke patients: economic evaluation. BMJ 2004;328:1102. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7448.1102 doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7448.1102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  40. Hodkinson HM. Evaluation of a mental test score for assessment of mental impairment in the elderly. Age Ageing 1972;1:233–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ageing/1.4.233 doi: 10.1093/ageing/1.4.233. [DOI] [PubMed]
  41. Al-Khawaja I, Wade DT, Collin CF. Bedside screening for aphasia: a comparison of two methods. J Neurol 1996;243:201–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02444015 doi: 10.1007/BF02444015. [DOI] [PubMed]
  42. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983;67:361–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  43. Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 2011;20:1727–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  44. Robinson BC. Validation of a Caregiver Strain Index. J Gerontol 1983;38:344–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronj/38.3.344 doi: 10.1093/geronj/38.3.344. [DOI] [PubMed]
  45. Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. Care After Stroke or Transient Ischaemic Attack. Information for Patients and their Carers. London: Royal College of Physicians 2012.
  46. Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. National Clinical Guideline for Stroke. 3rd edn. Royal College of Physicians; 2008.
  47. Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. National Clinical Guideline for Stroke. 4th edn. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2012.
  48. Hurn J, Kneebone I, Cropley M. Goal-setting as an outcome measure: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil 2006;20:756–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215506070793 doi: 10.1177/0269215506070793. [DOI] [PubMed]
  49. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, Milne R, Perera R, Moher D, et al. Better reporting of interventions: Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014;348:g1687. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g1687 doi: 10.1136/bmj.g1687. [DOI] [PubMed]
  50. The Picker Institute. Working With Us: Surveys. Acute Care. URL: www.picker.org/working-with-us/surveys/ (accessed 30 October 2018).
  51. van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJ, van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke 1988;19:604–7. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.19.5.604 doi: 10.1161/01.STR.19.5.604. [DOI] [PubMed]
  52. Rankin J. Cerebral vascular accidents in patients over the age of 60. II. Prognosis. Scott Med J 1957;2:200–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/003693305700200504 doi: 10.1177/003693305700200504. [DOI] [PubMed]
  53. Parker CJ, Gladman JR, Drummond AE, Dewey ME, Lincoln NB, Barer D, et al. A multicentre randomized controlled trial of leisure therapy and conventional occupational therapy after stroke. TOTAL Study Group. Trial of Occupational Therapy and Leisure. Clin Rehabil 2001;15:42–52. https://doi.org/10.1191/026921501666968247 doi: 10.1191/026921501666968247. [DOI] [PubMed]
  54. Peyre H, Leplège A, Coste J. Missing data methods for dealing with missing items in quality of life questionnaires. A comparison by simulation of personal mean score, full information maximum likelihood, multiple imputation, and hot deck techniques applied to the SF-36 in the French 2003 decennial health survey. Qual Life Res 2011;20:287–300. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9740-3 doi: 10.1007/s11136-010-9740-3. [DOI] [PubMed]
  55. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Torrance GW, O’Brien BJ, Stoddart GL. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2005.
  56. Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T, Gold L. Methods for exploring implementation variation and local context within a cluster randomised community intervention trial. J Epidemiol Community Health 2004;58:788–93. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2003.014415 doi: 10.1136/jech.2003.014415. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  57. Medical Research Council (MRC). Developing and Evaluating Complex Interventions: New Guidance. London: MRC; 2008.
  58. Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care. Second Edition. London: DHSC; 2005.
  59. International Conference for Harmonisation. Good Clinical Practice. Available from: www.ich.org/home.html (accessed 30 October 2018).
  60. McKevitt C, Wolfe C. Community support after stroke: patient and carer views. British Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation 2000;7:6–10. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjtr.2000.7.1.13907 doi: 10.12968/bjtr.2000.7.1.13907. [DOI]
  61. Hart E. The use of pluralistic evaluation to explore people’s experiences of stroke services in the community. Health Soc Care Community 1999;7:248–56. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2524.1999.00183.x doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2524.1999.00183.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  62. Dowswell G, Lawler J, Young J, Forster A, Hearn J. A qualitative study of specialist nurse support for stroke patients and care-givers at home. Clin Rehabil 1997;11:293–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/026921559701100405 doi: 10.1177/026921559701100405. [DOI] [PubMed]
  63. Fisher RJ, Walker MF, Golton I, Jenkinson D. The implementation of evidence-based rehabilitation services for stroke survivors living in the community: the results of a Delphi consensus process. Clin Rehabil 2013;27:741–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215512473312 doi: 10.1177/0269215512473312. [DOI] [PubMed]
  64. Clarke DJ, Hawkins R, Sadler E, Harding G, McKevitt C, Godfrey M, et al. Introducing structured caregiver training in stroke care: findings from the TRACS process evaluation study. BMJ Open 2014;4:e004473. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004473 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004473. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  65. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M, Bond L, Bonell C, Hardeman W, et al. Process evaluation of complex interventions: Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2015;350:h1258. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.h1258 doi: 10.1136/bmj.h1258. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  66. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006;3:77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa. [DOI]
  67. May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding and integrating practices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociology 2009;43:535–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038509103208 doi: 10.1177/0038038509103208. [DOI]
  68. Clarke DJ, Godfrey M, Hawkins R, Sadler E, Harding G, Forster A, et al. Implementing a training intervention to support caregivers after stroke: a process evaluation examining the initiation and embedding of programme change. Implement Sci 2013;8:96. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-96 doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-8-96. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  69. Jones F, McKevitt C, Riazi A, Liston M. How is rehabilitation with and without an integrated self-management approach perceived by UK community-dwelling stroke survivors? A qualitative process evaluation to explore implementation and contextual variations. BMJ Open 2017;7:e014109. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014109 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014109. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  70. Clarke DJ, Burton LJ, Tyson SF, Rodgers H, Drummond A, Palmer R et al. Why do stroke survivors not receive recommended amounts of active therapy? Findings from the ReAcT study, a mixed-methods case-study evaluation in eight stroke units. Clin Rehabil 2018;32:1119–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215518765329 doi: 10.1177/0269215518765329. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  71. Taylor E, McKevitt C, Jones F. Factors shaping the delivery of acute inpatient stroke therapy: a narrative synthesis. J Rehabil Med 2015;47:107–19. https://doi.org/10.2340/16501977-1918 doi: 10.2340/16501977-1918. [DOI] [PubMed]
  72. Scobbie L, Dixon D, Wyke S. Goal setting and action planning in the rehabilitation setting: development of a theoretically informed practice framework. Clin Rehabil 2011;25:468–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215510389198 doi: 10.1177/0269215510389198. [DOI] [PubMed]
  73. Mudge S, Kayes N, McPherson K. Who is in control? Clinicians’ view on their role in self-management approaches: a qualitative metasynthesis. BMJ Open 2015;5:e007413. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007413 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007413. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  74. Sugavanam T, Mead G, Bulley C, Donaghy M, van Wijck F. The effects and experiences of goal-setting in stroke rehabilitation – a systematic review. Disabil Rehabil 2013;35:177–90. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2012.690501 doi: 10.3109/09638288.2012.690501. [DOI] [PubMed]
  75. Maclean N, Pound P. A critical review of the concept of patient motivation in the literature on physical rehabilitation. Soc Sci Med 2000;50:495–506. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00334-2. [DOI] [PubMed]
  76. Clark T. ‘We’re over-researched here!’ Exploring accounts of research fatigue within qualitative research engagements. Sociology 2008;42:953–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038508094573 doi: 10.1177/0038038508094573. [DOI]
  77. Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). National Stroke Strategy. London: DHCS; 2007.
  78. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Stroke in Adults. Quality Standard 7: Regular Review of Health and Social Care Needs. London: NICE; 2010.
  79. Royal College of Physicians. Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP). Acute Organisational Audit: National Results – Full Results Portfolio. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2016.
  80. Devlin NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: an EQ-5D-5L value set for England. Health Econ 2018;27:7–22. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3564 doi: 10.1002/hec.3564. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  81. Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC). NHS Reference Costs 2015–16. London: DHSC; 2016.
  82. Curtis L, Burns B. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2017. Canterbury: PSSRU, University of Kent; 2017.
  83. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. London: NICE; 2013. [PubMed]
  84. Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull 2010;96:5–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldq033 doi: 10.1093/bmb/ldq033. [DOI] [PubMed]
  85. Manca A, Hawkins N, Sculpher MJ. Estimating mean QALYs in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the importance of controlling for baseline utility. Health Econ 2005;14:487–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.944 doi: 10.1002/hec.944. [DOI] [PubMed]
  86. Faria R, Gomes M, Epstein D, White IR. A guide to handling missing data in cost-effectiveness analysis conducted within randomised controlled trials. PharmacoEconomics 2014;32:1157–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3 doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0193-3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  87. Glick HA, Doshi JA, Sonnad SS, Polsky D. Economic Evaluation in Clinical Trials. 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2014. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780199685028.001.0001 doi: 10.1093/med/9780199685028.001.0001. [DOI]
  88. Fenwick E, Marshall DA, Levy AR, Nichol G. Using and interpreting cost-effectiveness acceptability curves: an example using data from a trial of management strategies for atrial fibrillation. BMC Health Serv Res 2006;6:52. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-6-52 doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-6-52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  89. van Hout B, Janssen MF, Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Busschbach J, Golicki D, et al. Interim scoring for the EQ-5D-5L: mapping the EQ-5D-5L to EQ-5D-3L value sets. Value Health 2012;15:708–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2012.02.008. [DOI] [PubMed]
  90. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal. Reference N0515. London: NICE; 2004. [PubMed]
  91. Lovell K, Bower P, Gellatly J, Byford S, Bee P, McMillan D, et al. Clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and acceptability of low-intensity interventions in the management of obsessive-compulsive disorder: the Obsessive-Compulsive Treatment Efficacy randomised controlled Trial (OCTET). Health Technol Assess 2017;21(37). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta21370 doi: 10.3310/hta21370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  92. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2010;152:726–32. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00232 doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00232. [DOI] [PubMed]
  93. Hare R, Rogers H, Lester H, McManus R, Mant J. What do stroke patients and their carers want from community services? Fam Pract 2006;23:131–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmi098 doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmi098. [DOI] [PubMed]
  94. Shannon RL, Forster A, Hawkins RJ. A qualitative exploration of self-reported unmet need 1 year after stroke. Disabil Rehabil 2016;38:2000–7. https://doi.org/10.3109/09638288.2015.1107784 doi: 10.3109/09638288.2015.1107784. [DOI] [PubMed]
  95. Tummers JF, Schrijvers AJ, Visser-Meily JM. Economic evidence on integrated care for stroke patients; a systematic review. Int J Integr Care 2012;12:e193. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.847 doi: 10.5334/ijic.847. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  96. Mahoney FI, Barthel DW. Functional evaluation: the Barthel index. Md State Med J 1965;14:61–5. https://doi.org/10.1037/t02366-000 doi: 10.1037/t02366-000. [DOI] [PubMed]
  97. Jones F, Gage H, Drummond A, Bhalla A, Grant R, Lennon S, et al. Feasibility study of an integrated stroke self-management programme: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2016;6:e008900. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008900 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008900. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  98. Parke HL, Epiphaniou E, Pearce G, Taylor SJ, Sheikh A, Griffiths CJ, et al. Self-management support interventions for stroke survivors: a systematic meta-review. PLOS ONE 2015;10:e0131448. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0131448 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0131448. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  99. Sadler E, Wolfe CD, McKevitt C. Lay and health care professional understandings of self-management: a systematic review and narrative synthesis. SAGE Open Med 2014;2:2050312114544493. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312114544493 doi: 10.1177/2050312114544493. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  100. Gillett M, Dallosso HM, Dixon S, Brennan A, Carey ME, Campbell MJ, et al. Delivering the diabetes education and self management for ongoing and newly diagnosed (DESMOND) programme for people with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes: cost effectiveness analysis. BMJ 2010;341:c4093. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4093 doi: 10.1136/bmj.c4093. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  101. Li J, Parrott S, Sweeting M, Farmer A, Ross J, Dack C, et al. Cost-effectiveness of facilitated access to a self-management website, compared to usual care, for patients with type 2 diabetes (HeLP-Diabetes): randomized controlled trial. J Med Internet Res 2018;20:e201. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.9256 doi: 10.2196/jmir.9256. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  102. National Audit Office. Reducing Brain Damage: Faster Access to Better Stroke Care. London: National Audit Office; 2005.
  103. Wu S, Mead G, Macleod M, Chalder T. Model of understanding fatigue after stroke. Stroke 2015;46:893–8. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.006647 doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.006647. [DOI] [PubMed]
  104. King’s College London. Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP). Results Portal. 2018. URL: www.strokeaudit.org/results (accessed 30 October 2018).
  105. Saka O, Serra V, Samyshkin Y, McGuire A, Wolfe CC. Cost-effectiveness of stroke unit care followed by early supported discharge. Stroke 2009;40:24–9. https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.518043 doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.108.518043. [DOI] [PubMed]
  106. Briggs A. Economic evaluation and clinical trials: size matters. BMJ 2000;321:1362–3. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.321.7273.1362 doi: 10.1136/bmj.321.7273.1362. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  107. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005;14:1523–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0 doi: 10.1007/s11136-004-7713-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  108. Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:200–7. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583 doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  109. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ 2013;346:f1049. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1049 doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1049. [DOI] [PubMed]
  110. CONSORT. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. URL: www.consort-statement.org (accessed 30 October 2018).
  111. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928 doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  112. Onghena P. Resentful Demoralization. In Everitt BS, Howell D, editors. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioural Science. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell; 2005. pp. 1744–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013192.bsa561 doi: 10.1002/0470013192.bsa561. [DOI]
  113. Staniszewska S, Brett J, Simera I, Seers K, Mockford C, Goodlad S, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ 2017;358:j3453. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3453 doi: 10.1136/bmj.j3453. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  114. de Iongh A, Fagan P, Fenner J, Kidd L. A Practical Guide To Self-Management Support. London: The Health Foundation; 2015.
  115. Pollock A, St George B, Fenton M, Firkins L. Top ten research priorities relating to life after stroke. Lancet Neurol 2012;11:209. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1474-4422(12)70029-7 doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(12)70029-7. [DOI] [PubMed]
  116. Royal College of Physicians. Sentinel Stroke National Audit Programme (SSNAP). Post-Acute Organisational Audit. Public Report. Phase 2. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2015.
  117. Royal College of Physicians. National Results – Post Acute Organisation. Phase 2 Post Acute Stroke Service Provider Audit: Summary Spreadsheet. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2015.
  118. Royal College of Physicians. Mind the Gap! The Third SSNAP Annual Report. Care Received Between April 2015 to March 2016. London: Royal College of Physicians; 2016.
  119. Department for Work and Pensions. Benefit and Pension Rates. London: Department for Work and Pensions; 2016. URL: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/524117/benefit-and-pension-rates-from-6-april-2016.pdf (accessed 30 October 2018).

RESOURCES