Interventions for improving community ambulation in individuals with stroke

被引:59
作者
Barclay, Ruth E. [1 ]
Stevenson, Ted J. [2 ]
Poluha, William [3 ]
Ripat, Jacquie [4 ]
Nett, Cristabel [1 ]
Srikesavan, Cynthia S. [5 ]
机构
[1] Univ Manitoba, Coll Rehabil Sci, Dept Phys Therapy, Winnipeg, MB R3E 0T6, Canada
[2] St Boniface Gen Hosp, Rehabil Serv, Winnipeg, MB R2H 2A6, Canada
[3] Univ Manitoba, Sci & Technol Lib, Winnipeg, MB R3E 0T6, Canada
[4] Univ Manitoba, Coll Rehabil Sci, Dept Occupat Therapy, Winnipeg, MB R3E 0T6, Canada
[5] Univ Manitoba, Sch Med Rehabil, Appl Hlth Sci PhD Program, Winnipeg, MB R3E 0T6, Canada
来源
COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS | 2015年 / 03期
关键词
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIAL; 6-MINUTE WALK TEST; OUTDOOR MOBILITY; OLDER-ADULTS; PARTICIPATION; POSTSTROKE; GAIT; VALIDITY; QUESTIONNAIRE; RELIABILITY;
D O I
10.1002/14651858.CD010200.pub2
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background Community ambulation refers to the ability of a person to walk in their own community, outside of their home and also indoors in private or public locations. Some people choose to walk for exercise or leisure and may walk with others as an important aspect of social functioning. Community ambulation is therefore an important skill for stroke survivors living in the community whose walking ability has been affected. Objectives To determine: (1) whether interventions improve community ambulation for stroke survivors, and (2) if any specific intervention method improves community ambulation more than other interventions. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (November 2013), PubMed (1946 to November 2013), EMBASE (1980 to November 2013), CINAHL (1982 to November 2013), PsycINFO(1887 to November 2013), Scopus (1960 to November 2013), Web of Science (1900 to November 2013), SPORTDiscus (1975 to November 2013), and PEDro, CIRRIE and REHABDATA (November 2013). We also searched ongoing trials registers (November 2013) and reference lists, and performed a cited reference search. Selection criteria Selection criteria included parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cross-over RCTs, studies in which participants are adult (aged 18 years or more) stroke survivors, and interventions that were aimed at improving community ambulation. We defined the primary outcome as participation; secondary outcomes included activity level outcomes related to gait and self-efficacy. Data collection and analysis One review author independently screened titles. Two review authors screened abstracts and full text articles, with a third review author was available to resolve any disagreements. Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias. All outcomes were continuous. The analysis for the primary outcome used the generic inverse variance methods for meta-analysis, using the standardised mean difference (SMD) and standard error (SE) from the participation outcomes. Analyses for secondary outcomes all used SMD or mean difference (MD). We completed analyses for each outcome with all studies, and by type of community ambulation intervention (community or outdoor ambulation practice, virtual practice, and imagery practice). We considered trials for each outcome to be of low quality due to some trial design considerations, such as who knew what group the participants were in, and the number of people who dropped out of the studies. Main results We included five studies involving 266 participants (136 intervention; 130 control). All participants were adult stroke survivors, living in the community or a care home. Programmes to improve community ambulation consisted of walking practice in a variety of settings and environments in the community, or an indoor activity that mimicked community walking (including virtual reality or mental imagery). Three studies were funded by government agencies, and two had no funding. From two studies of 198 people there was low quality evidence for the effect of intervention on participation compared with control (SMD, 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.20 to 0.35 (using inverse variance). The CI for the effect of the intervention on gait speed was wide and does not exclude no difference (MD 0.12, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.24; four studies, 98 participants, low quality evidence). We considered the quality of the evidence to be low for all the remaining outcomes in our review: Community Walk Test (MD -6.35, 95% CI -21.59 to 8.88); Walking Ability Questionnaire (MD 0.53, 95% CI -5.59 to 6.66); Six-Minute Walk Test (MD 39.62 metres, 95% CI -8.26 to 87.51) and self-efficacy (SMD 0.32, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.72). We downgraded the quality of the evidence because of a high risk of bias and imprecision. Authors' conclusions There is currently insufficient evidence to establish the effect of community ambulation interventions or to support a change in clinical practice. More research is needed to determine if practicing outdoor or community walking will improve participation and community ambulation skills for stroke survivors living in the community.
引用
收藏
页数:46
相关论文
共 60 条
  • [1] A treadmill and overground walking program improves walking in persons residing in the community after stroke: A placebo-controlled randomized trial
    Ada, L
    Dean, CM
    Hall, JM
    Bampton, J
    Crompton, S
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE AND REHABILITATION, 2003, 84 (10): : 1486 - 1491
  • [2] Improving community ambulation after stroke: the AMBULATE trial
    Ada, Louise
    Dean, Catherine M.
    Lindley, Richard
    Lloyd, Gemma
    [J]. BMC NEUROLOGY, 2009, 9
  • [3] Validation of the short form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire among stroke patients
    Anderson, C
    Laubscher, S
    Burns, R
    [J]. STROKE, 1996, 27 (10) : 1812 - 1816
  • [4] [Anonymous], CLINICAL REHABILITAT
  • [5] [Anonymous], 2001, International Classification of Functioning (2002)
  • [6] [Anonymous], STROKE STATISTICS
  • [7] [Anonymous], HEALTH STATUS AND HE
  • [8] [Anonymous], THE GLOBAL BURDEN OF
  • [9] [Anonymous], THE ATLAS OF HEART D
  • [10] [Anonymous], 2014, REVIEW MANAGER REVMA