Use the Back button in your browser to see the other results of your search or to select another record.
| Incentives for uptake of and adherence to outpatient stroke rehabilitation services: a 3-arm randomized controlled trial |
| Matchar DB, Young SHY, Sim R, Yu CJY, Yan X, de Silva DA, Chakraborty B |
| Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation 2022 Jan;103(1):1-7 |
| clinical trial |
| 5/10 [Eligibility criteria: Yes; Random allocation: Yes; Concealed allocation: Yes; Baseline comparability: No; Blind subjects: No; Blind therapists: No; Blind assessors: No; Adequate follow-up: Yes; Intention-to-treat analysis: No; Between-group comparisons: Yes; Point estimates and variability: Yes. Note: Eligibility criteria item does not contribute to total score] *This score has been confirmed* |
|
OBJECTIVE: To determine if rehabilitation uptake and adherence can be increased by providing coordinated transportation (increased convenience) and eliminating out-of-pocket costs (reduced expense). DESIGN: Three-arm randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Stroke units of 2 Singapore tertiary hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Singaporeans or permanent residents 21 years or older who were diagnosed as having stroke and were discharged home with physician's recommendation to continue outpatient rehabilitation (N = 266). INTERVENTIONS: A transportation Incentives arm (T), which provides free transportation services, a transportation and sessions incentives arm (T and S), offering free transportation and prescribed stroke rehabilitation sessions, and a control arm, education (E), consisting of a stroke rehabilitation educational program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary study outcome was uptake of outpatient rehabilitation services (ORS) among patients poststroke and key predefined secondary outcomes being number of sessions attended and adherence to prescribed sessions. RESULTS: Uptake rate of ORS was 73.0% for E (confidence interval (CI) 63.8% to 82.3%), 81.8% for T (CI 73.8% to 89.8%), and 84.3% for T and S (CI 76.7% to 91.8%). Differences of T and T and S versus E were not statistically significant (p = 0.22 and p = 0.10, respectively). However, average number of rehabilitation sessions attended were significantly higher in both intervention arms: 5.50 +/- 7.65 for T and 7.51 +/- 9.52 for T and S versus 3.26 +/- 4.22 for control arm (E) (T versus E p = 0.017; T and S versus E p < 0.001). Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated that persistence was higher for T and S compared with E (p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: This study has demonstrated a possibility in increasing the uptake of and persistence to stroke ORS with free transportation and sessions. Incentivizing survivors of stroke to take up ORS is a new strategy worthy of further exploration for future policy change in financing ORS or other long-term care services.
|