Advertisement

Non-pharmacological interventions for the improvement of post-stroke quality of life amongst older stroke survivors: a systematic review of systematic reviews (The SENATOR ONTOP series)

  • Carrie StewartEmail author
  • Selvarani Subbarayan
  • Pamela Paton
  • Elliot Gemmell
  • Iosief Abraha
  • Phyo Kyaw Myint
  • Denis O’Mahony
  • Antonio Cherubini
  • Alfonso J. Cruz-Jentoft
  • Roy L. Soiza
Review

Key summary points

Aim

This systematic review aimed to determine if non-pharmacological interventions can impact upon older stroke survivors quality of life.

Findings

From 28 trials we identified limited evidence supporting a beneficial impact upon quality of life from additional physiotherapy and occupational therapy. Very limited evidence supported the use of a wide array of other non-pharmacological therapies.

Message

Current evidence is limited by low study quality and small sample sizes and more trials specifically involving older stroke survivors are required.

Abstract

Purpose

The efficacy of non-pharmacological stroke rehabilitation approaches for older stroke survivors is largely unknown, particularly in relation to psychosocial outcomes such as quality of life. This systematic review examined the evidence for such interventions as part of the Optimal Evidence-Based Non-Drug Therapies in Older Persons (ONTOP) project conducted under an European Union funded project called the Software Engine for the Assessment and Optimisation of Drug and Non-Drug Therapies in Older Persons (SENATOR) [http://www.senator-project.eu].

Methods

Thirteen experts in geriatric medicine, as part of a Delphi panel, agreed quality of life to be a critical outcome of stroke rehabilitation. A comprehensive search strategy was developed and databases were searched for eligible systematic reviews from which trials meeting our criteria were identified. Eligible papers were then double reviewed. Due to heterogeneity, narrative analysis was performed. Cochrane risk of bias and GRADE assessment tools were used to assess bias and quality of evidence.

Results

We identified 28 trials, spanning ten types of intervention. Limited evidence supports the use of additional occupational therapy and physiotherapy, with very limited evidence supporting our recommendation to explore caregiver training, constraint-induced movement therapy, device-assisted physiotherapy, and self-management education further.

Conclusion

Limited evidence suggests a range of non-pharmacological interventions may improve the quality of life of older stroke survivors. However, evidence is limited by low study quality and the small number of studies targeting older stroke survivors. We recommend future studies explore such interventions exclusively in older adult populations and improve methodological and outcome reporting.

Keywords

Older adults Ageing Stroke Rehabilitation Non-pharmacological therapies 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Funding

This review was completed as part of a series of systematic reviews conducted as part of the SENATOR programme, a collaborative project funded by the European Union under the 7th Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement number 305930 (www.senator-project.eu). The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

No informed consent was necessary for the study.

Supplementary material

41999_2019_180_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (367 kb)
Online Resource 1 PRISMA Checklist.pdf
41999_2019_180_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (355 kb)
Online Resource 2 Database Search Strategies.pdf
41999_2019_180_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (500 kb)
Online Resource 3 References of Studies Included in the Systematic Review.pdf
41999_2019_180_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (491 kb)
Online Resource 4 Description of All Included Interventions.pdf

References

  1. 1.
    Stroke Association (2018) State of the nation: Stroke statistics. February 2018. Stroke Association. https://www.stroke.org.uk/system/files/sotn_2018.pdf. Accessed 29 Jan 2019
  2. 2.
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2013) Stroke rehabilitation in adults. NICE, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Royal College of Physicians Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party (RCP) (2016) National clinical guideline for stroke. 5th Ed. Royal College of Physicians. Published: 3rd October 2016. https://www.strokeaudit.org/SupportFiles/Documents/Guidelines/2016-National-Clinical-Guideline-for-Stroke-5t-(1).aspx. Accessed 19 Sep 2017
  4. 4.
    Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) (2010) Management of patients with stroke: Rehabilitation, prevention and management of complications, and discharge planning A national clinical guideline. Guideline number 118. Edinburgh: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Published: June 2010. Available at: http://www.sign.ac.uk/sign-118-management-of-patients-with-stroke-rehabilitation,-prevention-and-management-of-complicati.html. Accessed 19 Sep 2017
  5. 5.
    Kwakkel G, Kollen B, Lindeman E (2004) Understanding the pattern of functional recovery after stroke: facts and theories. Restor Neurol Neurosurg 22(3–5):281–299Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lieberman D, Lieberman D (2005) Rehabilitation following stroke in patients aged 85 and above. J Rehabil Res Dev 42(1):47Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Watts G (2012) Why the exclusion of older people from clinical research must stop. BMJ Online 344:e3445.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e3445 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tangiisuran B, Wright J, Van der Cammen T, Rajkumar C (2009) Adverse Drug Reactions in Elderly: Challenges in Identification and Improving Preventative Strategies. Age Ageing 38(4):358–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kose E, Toyoshima M, Okazoe S, Oka R, Shiratsuchi Y, Hayashi H (2017) The relationship between polypharmacy and recovery of activities of daily living among convalescent stroke patients: a propensity score-matched analysis. Eur Geriatr Med 8(3):250–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Abraha I, Cruz-Jentoft A, Soiza RL, O’Mahony D, Cherubini A (2015) Evidence of and recommendations for non-pharmacological interventions for common geriatric conditions: the SENATOR-ONTOP systematic review protocol. BMJ Open 5(1):e007488-2014-007488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Soiza RL, Subbarayan S, Cherubini A, Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Petrovic M, Gudmundsson A et al (2017) The SENATOR project: developing and trialling a novel software engine to optimise medications and non-pharmacological therapy in older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Ther Adv Drug Saf 8:81–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lozano-Montoya I, Vélez-Díaz-Pallarés M, Abraha I, Cherubini A, Soiza RL, O’Mahony D et al (2016) Nonpharmacologic interventions to prevent pressure ulcers in older patients: an overview of systematic reviews (the software ENgine for the assessment and optimization of drug and non-drug therapy in older peRsons [SENATOR] definition of optimal evidence-based non-drug therapies in older people [ONTOP] series). JAMDA 17(4):370-e1Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rimland JM, Abraha I, Dell’Aquila G, Cruz-Jentoft A, Soiza RL, Gudmundsson A, Cherubini A (2017) Non-pharmacological interventions to prevent falls in older patients: clinical practice recommendations—the SENATOR ONTOP Series. Eur Geriatr Med 8(5–6):413–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keeney S, Hasson F, McKenna HP (2001) A critical review of the delphi technique as a research methodology for nursing. Int J Nurs Stud 38(2):195–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P et al (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 336(7650):924–926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stewart C, Subbarayan S, Paton P, Gemmell E, Abraha I, Myint PK, O’Mahony D, Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Cherubini A, Soiza RL (2018) Non-pharmacological interventions for the improvement of post-stroke activities of daily living and disability amongst older stroke survivors: a systematic review. PLoS One 13(10):e0204774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB, Hedges Team (2005) Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from medline: analytical survey. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 330(7482):68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Higgins JP, Green S (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Popay J, Roberts H, Sowden A, Petticrew M, Arai L, Rodgers M et.al (2006) Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESRC methods programme Version, 1, b92. http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/shm/research/nssr/research/dissemination/publications/NS_Synthesis_Guidance_v1.pdf. Accessed 6 Aug 2018
  20. 20.
    Johansson BB, Haker E, von Arbin M, Britton M, Langstrom G, Terent A, Swedish Collaboration on Sensory Stimulation After Stroke et al (2001) Acupuncture and transcutaneous nerve stimulation in stroke rehabilitation: a randomized, controlled trial. Stroke 32(3):707–713CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Park J, White AR, James MA, Hemsley AG, Johnson P, Chambers J, Ernst E (2005) Acupuncture for subacute stroke rehabilitation: a sham-controlled, subject-and assessor-blind, randomized trial. Arch Int Med 165(17):2026–2031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kalra L, Evans A, Perez I, Melbourn A, Patel A, Knapp M, Donaldson N (2004) Training carers of stroke patients: randomised controlled trial. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 328(7448):1099.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.328.7448.1099 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wu C, Chen C, Tsai W, Lin K, Chou S (2007) A randomized controlled trial of modified constraint-induced movement therapy for elderly stroke survivors: changes in motor impairment, daily functioning, and quality of life. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 88(3):273–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lo AC, Guarino PD, Richards LG, Haselkorn JK, Wittenberg GF, Federman DG et al (2010) Robot-assisted therapy for long-term upper-limb impairment after stroke. N Engl J Med 362(19):1772–1783CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Raglio A, Zaliani A, Baiardi P, Bossi D, Sguazzin C, Capodaglio et al (2017) Active music therapy approach for stroke patients in the post-acute rehabilitation. Neurol Sci 38(5):893–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Church C, Price C, Pandyan AD, Huntley S, Curless R, Rodgers H (2006) Randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effect of surface neuromuscular electrical stimulation to the shoulder after acute stroke. Stroke 37(12):2995–3001.  https://doi.org/10.1161/01.STR.0000248969.78880.82 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parker C, Gladman JR, Drummond AE, Dewey M, Lincoln N, Barer D et al (2001) A multicentre randomized controlled trial of leisure therapy and conventional occupational therapy after stroke. Clin Rehabil 15(1):42–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Walker M, Drummond A, Lincoln N (1996) Evaluation of dressing practice for stroke patients after discharge from hospital: a crossover design study. Clin Rehabil 10(1):23–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Walker M, Gladman J, Lincoln N, Siemonsma P, Whiteley T (1999) Occupational therapy for stroke patients not admitted to hospital: a randomised controlled trial. The Lancet 354(9175):278–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ada L, Dean CM, Hall JM, Bampton J, Crompton S (2003) A treadmill and overground walking program improves walking in persons residing in the community after stroke: a placebo-controlled, randomized trial. Arch Phys Med Rehab 84(10):1486–1491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Duncan P, Richards L, Wallace D, Stoker-Yates J, Pohl P, Luchies C et al (1998) A randomized, controlled pilot study of a home-based exercise program for individuals with mild and moderate stroke. Stroke 29(10):2055–2060CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Glasgow Augmented Physiotherapy Study Group (2004) Can augmented physiotherapy input enhance recovery of mobility after stroke? A randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehab 18(5):529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kwakkel G, Wagenaar RC, Twisk JW, Lankhorst GJ, Koetsier JC (1999) Intensity of leg and arm training after primary middle-cerebral-artery stroke: a randomised trial. The Lancet 354(9174):191–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kwakkel G, Kollen BJ, Wagenaar RC (2002) Long term effects of intensity of upper and lower limb training after stroke: a randomised trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 72(4):473–479Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Langhammer B, Stanghelle JK (2000) Bobath or motor relearning programme? A comparison of two different approaches of physiotherapy in stroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled study. Clin Rehabil 14(4):361–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Langhammer B, Stanghelle JK (2003) Bobath or motor relearning programme? Afollow-up one and four years post stroke. Clin Rehabil 17(7):731–734CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    McClellan R, Ada L (2004) A six-week, resource-efficient mobility program after discharge from rehabilitation improves standing in people affected by stroke: placebo-controlled, randomised trial. Aust J Phys 50(3):163–167Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Morris JH, van Wijck F, Joice S, Ogston SA, Cole I, MacWalter RS (2008) A comparison of bilateral and unilateral upper-limb task training in early poststroke rehabilitation: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 89(7):1237–1245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sandberg K, Kleist M, Falk L, Enthoven P (2016) Effects of twice-weekly intense aerobic exercise in early subacute stroke: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 97(8):1244–1253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Teixeira-Salmela LF, Olney SJ, Nadeau S, Brouwer B (1999) Muscle strengthening and physical conditioning to reduce impairment and disability in chronic stroke survivors. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 80(10):1211–1218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Cadilhac DA, Hoffmann S, Kilkenny M, Lindley R, Lalor E, Osborne RH et al (2011) A phase II multicentered, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial of the stroke self-management program. Stroke 42(6):1673–1679.  https://doi.org/10.1161/strokeaha.110.601997 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Desrosiers J, Noreau L, Rochette A, Carbonneau H, Fontaine L, Viscogliosi C et al (2007) Effect of a home leisure education program after stroke: A randomized controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 88(9):1095–1100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Forster A, Young J (1996) Specialist nurse support for patients with stroke in the community: A randomised controlled trial. BMJ (Clin Res Ed) 312(7047):1642–1646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nour K, Desrosiers J, Gauthier P, Carbonneau H (2002) Impact of a home leisure educational program for older adults who have had a stroke (home leisure educational program). Ther Recreat J 36(1):48Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Marsden D, Quinn R, Pond N, Golledge R, Neilson C, White J et al (2010) A multidisciplinary group programme in rural settings for community-dwelling chronic stroke survivors and their carers: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Clin Rehabil 24(4):328–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Adie K, Schofield C, Berrow M, Wingham J, Humfryes J, Pritchard C et al (2017) Does the use of Nintendo Wii SportsTM improve arm function? Trial of WiiTM in Stroke: A randomized controlled trial and economics analysis. Clin rehabil 31(2):173–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Teasell RW, Foley NC, Bhogal SK, Speechley MR (2003) An evidence-based review of stroke rehabilitation. Top Stroke Rehabil 10(1):29–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Veerbeek JM, van Wegen E, van Peppen R, van der Wees, Jan P, Hendriks E, Rietberg M et al (2014) What is the evidence for physical therapy poststroke? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 9(2):87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bradt J, Magee WL, Dileo C, Wheeler BL, McGilloway E (2010) Music therapy for acquired brain injury. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:CD006787Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Särkämö T, Tervaniemi M, Laitinen S et al (2008) Music listening enhances cognitive recovery and mood after middle cerebral artery stroke. Brain 131:866–876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Schneider S, Schonle PW, Altenmuller E, Munte TF (2007) Using musical instruments to improve motor skill recovery following a stroke. J Neurol 254(1339):46Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Vafadar AK, Côté JN, Archambault PS (2015) Effectiveness of functional electrical stimulation in improving clinical outcomes in the upper arm following stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BioMed Res Int 2015:729768.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/729768 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Legg LA, Lewis SR, Schofield-Robinson OJ, Drummond A, Langhorne P (2017) Occupational therapy for adults with problems in activities of daily living after stroke. Stroke 48:e321–e322.  https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.117.018923 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cohen JW, Ivanova TD, Brouwer B, Miller KJ, Bryant D, Garland SJ (2018) Do performance measures of strength, balance, and mobility predict quality of life and community reintegration after stroke? Arch Phys Med Rehabil 99(4):713–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Lennon S, McKenna S, Jones F (2013) Self-management programmes for people post stroke: a systematic review. Clin Rehabil 27(10):867–878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kendall E, Catalano T, Kuipers P, Posner N, Buys N, Charker J (2007) Recovery following stroke: the role of self-management education. Soc Sci Med 64(3):735–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Clark E, Bennett K, Ward N, Jones F (2018) One size does not fit all—Stroke survivor’s views on group self-management interventions. Dis Rehabil 40(5):569–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Laver KE, George S, Thomas S, Deutsch JE, Crotty M (2017) Virtual reality for stroke rehabilitation. Coch DB Syst Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd008349.pub4 Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Cherubini A, Signore SD, Ouslander J, Semla T, Michel JP (2010) Fighting against age discrimination in clinical trials. JAGS 58(9):1791–1796CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Boutron I, Guittet L, Estellat C, Moher D, Hróbjartsson A, Ravaud P (2007) Reporting methods of blinding in randomized trials assessing nonpharmacological treatments. PLoS Med 4(2):61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Paterson C, Dieppe P (2005) Characteristic and incidental (placebo) effects in complex interventions such as acupuncture. BMJ 330(7501):1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Taype-Rondan A (2017) Rehabilitation monitoring device to improve quality of life in stroke patients. ISRCTN71683182.  https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN71683182. Accessed 29 Jan 2019
  63. 63.
    Evans GL (2018) Improving quality of life for veterans with stroke and psychological distress. NCT03645759. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT03645759?term=improving+quality+of+life+veterans+stroke&rank=1. Accessed 29 Jan 2019
  64. 64.
    Brown J (2017) Stroke self-management. NCT01507688. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT03645759?term=improving+quality+of+life+veterans+stroke&rank=1. Accessed 29 Jan 2019

Copyright information

© European Geriatric Medicine Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Old Age MedicineAberdeen Royal InfirmaryAberdeenUK
  2. 2.Institute of Applied Health SciencesUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  3. 3.Geriatria, Accettazione geriatrica e Centro di ricerca per l’invecchiamento, IRCCS INRCAAnconaItaly
  4. 4.Department of Geriatric MedicineUniversity College CorkCorkIreland
  5. 5.Fundación para la Investigación Biomédica del Hospital Universitario Ramón y CajalMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations