Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Stroke | Research article

A multi-centre, UK-based, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of 4 follow-up assessment methods in stroke survivors

Authors: Jonathan Hewitt, Anna Pennington, Alexander Smith, Stephanie Gething, Michelle Price, James White, Richard Dewar, Ben Carter

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Recovery following a stroke is a long and ongoing process. Post-stroke follow-up after leaving the hospital is recommended. Methods for follow-up patients include face-to-face, via the telephone, post or online (internet). However, there is a debate which method is preferred by patients. This study aimed to determine whether telephone interview, online questionnaire and postal questionnaire were as acceptable as face-to-face follow-up.

Methods

In a blinded, UK-wide, multi-centre, Zelen’s designed, 4-arm (postal, online, telephone, compared to face-to-face), pragmatic non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of the mode of administration, stroke survivors were randomised to postal, online, telephone and face-to-face assessment, in an equal ratio (1:1:1:1). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that responded to the three allocation groups, compared to the face-to-face group. Subgroup analyses for age, aphasia and type and severity of stroke were carried out. A non-inferiority margin of 0.025 was used, and Holm-Bonferroni multiplicity adjustment was made.

Results

Of the 2074 eligible patients randomised, 55% were male (1142/2074), with an average age of 73.0 years old (SD = 13.2). Of those randomised, 22% (116/525), 9% (47/515) and 20% (101/513) responded in postal, online and telephone, respectively, compared to 17% (89/521) in the face-to-face group. The reduction in the online response rate compared to face-to-face was found to be both inferior and not non-inferior and estimated as an 8% reduction (95% CI 3.9 to 12.0%; p < 0.001). The association with lower online completion was present regardless of age, stroke type (haemorrhage or infarct) and stroke severity. In haemorrhagic stroke, the reduction in response online, compared to face-to-face, was 21% (95% CI 10 to 32%; p value = 0.002). A secondary analysis found non-aphasic stroke survivors preferred postal completion adjusted odds ratio of 1.43 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.95; p = 0.026).

Conclusions

The study found that fewer stroke survivors completed follow-up assessment using an online method, compared to face-to-face. This finding was present in all age groups. Caution should be employed when considering online follow-up methods in stroke survivors, particularly in those who have experienced a cerebrovascular haemorrhage.

Trials registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03177161. Registered on 6 June 2017.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Winstein CJ, et al. Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2016;47(6):e98–e169.CrossRef Winstein CJ, et al. Guidelines for adult stroke rehabilitation and recovery: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2016;47(6):e98–e169.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Salinas J, et al. An international standard set of patient-centered outcome measures after stroke. Stroke. 2016;47(1):180–6.CrossRef Salinas J, et al. An international standard set of patient-centered outcome measures after stroke. Stroke. 2016;47(1):180–6.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Smith A, et al. Acceptability of the method of administration of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) with stroke survivors, a randomised controlled trial protocol. Trials. 2018;19(1):349.CrossRef Smith A, et al. Acceptability of the method of administration of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) with stroke survivors, a randomised controlled trial protocol. Trials. 2018;19(1):349.CrossRef
5.
7.
go back to reference Makai P, et al. Which frail older patients use online health communities and why? A mixed methods process evaluation of use of the Health and Welfare portal. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(12):e278.CrossRef Makai P, et al. Which frail older patients use online health communities and why? A mixed methods process evaluation of use of the Health and Welfare portal. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(12):e278.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Ossebaard HC, Seydel ER, van Gemert-Pijnen L. Online usability and patients with long-term conditions: a mixed-methods approach. Int J Med Inform. 2012;81(6):374–87.CrossRef Ossebaard HC, Seydel ER, van Gemert-Pijnen L. Online usability and patients with long-term conditions: a mixed-methods approach. Int J Med Inform. 2012;81(6):374–87.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Duncan P, et al. Measuring stroke impact with the stroke impact scale: telephone versus mail administration in veterans with stroke. Med Care. 2005;43(5):507–15.CrossRef Duncan P, et al. Measuring stroke impact with the stroke impact scale: telephone versus mail administration in veterans with stroke. Med Care. 2005;43(5):507–15.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Lannin NA, et al. Telephone follow-up was more expensive but more efficient than postal in a national stroke registry. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(8):896–902.CrossRef Lannin NA, et al. Telephone follow-up was more expensive but more efficient than postal in a national stroke registry. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(8):896–902.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Peters M, et al. The routine collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for long-term conditions in primary care: a cohort survey. BMJ Open. 2014;4(2):e003968.CrossRef Peters M, et al. The routine collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for long-term conditions in primary care: a cohort survey. BMJ Open. 2014;4(2):e003968.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Greenhalgh J, et al. How do aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data stimulate health care improvement? A realist synthesis. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2018;23(1):57–65.CrossRef Greenhalgh J, et al. How do aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data stimulate health care improvement? A realist synthesis. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2018;23(1):57–65.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
A multi-centre, UK-based, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of 4 follow-up assessment methods in stroke survivors
Authors
Jonathan Hewitt
Anna Pennington
Alexander Smith
Stephanie Gething
Michelle Price
James White
Richard Dewar
Ben Carter
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keywords
Stroke
Aphasia
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1350-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

BMC Medicine 1/2019 Go to the issue