Co-design and evaluation of a patient-centred transition programme for stroke patients, combining case management and access to an internet information platform: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial - NAVISTROKE

Anne Termoz, Marion Delvallée, Eléonore Damiolini, Mathilde Marchal, Marie Preau, Laure Huchon, Stéphanie Mazza, Ouazna Habchi, Estelle Bravant, Laurent Derex, Norbert Nighoghossian, Serkan Cakmak, Muriel Rabilloud, Angélique Denis, Anne-Marie Schott, Julie Haesebaert, Anne Termoz, Marion Delvallée, Eléonore Damiolini, Mathilde Marchal, Marie Preau, Laure Huchon, Stéphanie Mazza, Ouazna Habchi, Estelle Bravant, Laurent Derex, Norbert Nighoghossian, Serkan Cakmak, Muriel Rabilloud, Angélique Denis, Anne-Marie Schott, Julie Haesebaert

Abstract

Background: Stroke affects many aspects of life in stroke survivors and their family, and returning home after hospital discharge is a key step for the patient and his or her relatives. Patients and caregivers report a significant need for advice and information during this transition period. Our hypothesis is that, through a comprehensive, individualised and flexible support for patients and their caregivers, a patient-centred post-stroke hospital/home transition programme, combining an Internet information platform and telephone follow-up by a case manager, could improve patients' level of participation and quality of life.

Methods: An open parallel-group randomized trial will be conducted in two centres in France. We will recruit 170 adult patients who have had a first confirmed stroke, and were directly discharged home from the stroke unit with a modified Rankin score ≤3. Intervention content will be defined using a user-centred approach involving patients, caregivers, health-care professionals and social workers. Patients randomized to the intervention group will receive telephonic support by a trained case manager and access to an interactive Internet information platform during the 12 months following their return home. Patients randomized to the control group will receive usual care. The primary outcome is patient participation, measured by the "participation" dimension score of the Stroke Impact Scale 6 months after discharge. Secondary outcomes will include, for patients, quality of life, activation, care consumption, as well as physical, mental and social outcomes; and for caregivers, quality of life and burden. Patients will be contacted within one week after discharge, at 6 and 12 months for the outcomes collection. A process evaluation alongside the study is planned.

Discussion: Our patient-centred programme will empower patients and their carers, through individualised and progressive follow-up, to find their way around the range of available healthcare and social services, to better understand them and to use them more effectively. The action of a centralised case manager by telephone and the online platform will make it possible to disseminate this intervention to a large number of patients, over a wide area and even in cases of geographical isolation.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials NCT03956160 , Posted: May-2019 and Update: September-2021.

Keywords: Hospital discharge; Patient-centred transition programme; Stroke.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

© 2022. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow chart of patients included in the NAVISTROKE trial
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
User-centred approach for the design of the intervention
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Logic Model of Navistroke program

References

    1. Hankey GJ. Stroke. Lancet Lond Engl. 2017 11;389(10069):641–54.
    1. Lakshminarayan K, Berger AK, Fuller CC, Jacobs DR, Anderson DC, Steffen LM, et al. Trends in 10-year survival of patients with stroke hospitalized between 1980 and 2000: the Minnesota stroke survey. Stroke. 2014;45(9):2575–2581. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.114.005512.
    1. Gabet A, de Peretti C, Woimant F, Giroud M, Bejot Y, Schnitzler A, Olie V. Évolution de l’admission en soins de suite et de réadaptation des patients hospitalisés pour accident vasculaire cérébral en France, 2010-2014. Bull Epidémiologique Hebd. 2017 2017(11):196–207.
    1. King RB, Semik PE. Stroke caregiving: difficult times, resource use, and needs during the first 2 years. J Gerontol Nurs. 2006;32(4):37–44. doi: 10.3928/00989134-20060401-07.
    1. Wissel J, Olver J, Sunnerhagen KS. Navigating the poststroke continuum of care. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis Off J Natl Stroke Assoc. 2013;22(1):1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2011.05.021.
    1. Ski C, O’Connell B. Stroke: the increasing complexity of carer needs. J Neurosci Nurs J Am Assoc Neurosci Nurses. 2007;39(3):172–179. doi: 10.1097/01376517-200706000-00008.
    1. Bakas T, Jessup NM, McLennon SM, Habermann B, Weaver MT, Morrison G. Tracking patterns of needs during a telephone follow-up programme for family caregivers of persons with stroke. Disabil Rehabil. 2016;38(18):1780–1790. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2015.1107767.
    1. Cameron JI, Gignac MAM. ‘Timing It Right’: a conceptual framework for addressing the support needs of family caregivers to stroke survivors from the hospital to the home. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;70(3):305–314. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.10.020.
    1. Langhorne P, Baylan S, Early Supported Discharge Trialists. Early supported discharge services for people with acute stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 13;7:CD000443.
    1. Bodechtel U, Barlinn K, Helbig U, Arnold K, Siepmann T, Pallesen L-P, et al. The stroke east Saxony pilot project for organized post-stroke care: a case-control study. Brain Behav. 2016;6(5):e00455.
    1. McAlister FA, Majumdar SR, Padwal RS, Fradette M, Thompson A, Buck B, et al. Case management for blood pressure and lipid level control after minor stroke: PREVENTION randomized controlled trial. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J J Assoc Medicale Can. 2014;186(8):577–584. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.140053.
    1. Widén Holmqvist L, von Koch L, Kostulas V, Holm M, Widsell G, Tegler H, et al. A randomized controlled trial of rehabilitation at home after stroke in southwest Stockholm. Stroke. 1998;29(3):591–597. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.29.3.591.
    1. Widén Holmqvist L, de Pedro-Cuesta J, Holm M, Kostulas V. Intervention design for rehabilitation at home after stroke. A pilot feasibility study. Scand J Rehabil Med. 1995 Mar;27(1):43–50.
    1. Reeves MJ, Hughes AK, Woodward AT, Freddolino PP, Coursaris CK, Swierenga SJ, et al. Improving transitions in acute stroke patients discharged to home: the Michigan stroke transitions trial (MISTT) protocol. BMC Neurol. 2017;17(1):115. doi: 10.1186/s12883-017-0895-1.
    1. Hughes AK, Woodward AT, Fritz MC, Reeves MJ. Improving stroke transitions: Development and implementation of a social work case management intervention. Soc Work Health Care. 2018;57(2):95–108. doi: 10.1080/00981389.2017.1401027.
    1. Reeves MJ, Fritz MC, Woodward AT, Hughes AK, Coursaris CK, Swierenga SJ, et al. Michigan Stroke Transitions Trial. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2019;12(7):e005493.
    1. 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 Mar 19;350:h1258.
    1. Skivington K, Matthews L, Simpson SA, Craig P, Baird J, Blazeby JM, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2021 30;374:n2061.
    1. Chan A-W, 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(3):200–207. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583.
    1. 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 Mar 7;348:g1687.
    1. 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. Res Involv Engagem. 2017;3:13. doi: 10.1186/s40900-017-0062-2.
    1. Hennink MM, Kaiser BN, Marconi VC. Code Saturation Versus Meaning Saturation: How Many Interviews Are Enough? Qual Health Res. 2017;27(4):591–608. doi: 10.1177/1049732316665344.
    1. Morse JM. The Significance of Saturation. Qual Health Res. 1995;5(2):147–149. doi: 10.1177/104973239500500201.
    1. Abras C, Maloney-Krichmar D, Preece J. User-centered design. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Brainbridge, W; 2004. (Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction).
    1. Bandura A. Health promotion from the perspective of social cognitive theory. Psychol Health. 1998;13(4):623–649. doi: 10.1080/08870449808407422.
    1. Bandura A. Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Educ Behav Off Publ Soc Public Health Educ. 2004;31(2):143–164.
    1. Della Vecchia C, Préau M, Carpentier C, Viprey M, Haesebaert J, Termoz A, et al. Illness beliefs and emotional responses in mildly disabled stroke survivors: A qualitative study. PloS One. 2019;14(10):e0223681.
    1. Schott AM, Termoz A, Viprey M, Tazarourte K, Vecchia CD, Bravant E, et al. Short and long-term impact of four sets of actions on acute ischemic stroke management in Rhône County, a population based before-and-after prospective study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):12. doi: 10.1186/s12913-020-05982-0.
    1. Caël S, Decavel P, Binquet C, Benaim C, Puyraveau M, Chotard M, et al. Stroke impact scale version 2: validation of the French version. Phys Ther. 2015;95(5):778–790. doi: 10.2522/ptj.20130012.
    1. World Health Organization. International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Geneva; 2001. (World Health Organization).
    1. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983;67(6):361–370. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x.
    1. Gardenas J. Echelles et outils d’évaluation en médecine générale. 2002 Mar. (J. Gardenas et Coll.). Report No.: Le Généraliste-Supplément du N° 2187.
    1. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bédirian V, Charbonneau S, Whitehead V, Collin I, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–699. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2005.53221.x.
    1. Nasreddine ZS, Patel BB. Validation of Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA, Alternate French Versions. Can J Neurol Sci J Can Sci Neurol. 2016;43(5):665–671. doi: 10.1017/cjn.2016.273.
    1. Rascle N, Bruchon-Schweitzer M, Sarason IG. Short form of Sarason’s Social Support Questionnaire: French adaptation and validation. Psychol Rep. 2005;97(1):195–202. doi: 10.2466/pr0.97.1.195-202.
    1. Hibbard JH, Stockard J, Mahoney ER, Tusler M. Development of the Patient Activation Measure (PAM): conceptualizing and measuring activation in patients and consumers. Health Serv Res. 2004;39(4 Pt 1):1005–1026. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00269.x.
    1. Gandek B, Ware JE, Aaronson NK, Apolone G, Bjorner JB, Brazier JE, et al. Cross-validation of item selection and scoring for the SF-12 Health Survey in nine countries: results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):1171–8.
    1. Zarit SH, Reever KE, Bach-Peterson J. Relatives of the impaired elderly: correlates of feelings of burden. Gerontologist. 1980;20(6):649–655. doi: 10.1093/geront/20.6.649.
    1. Bruno A, Akinwuntan AE, Lin C, Close B, Davis K, Baute V, et al. Simplified Modified Rankin Scale Questionnaire: Reproducibility Over the Telephone and Validation With Quality of Life. Stroke. 2011;42(8):2276–2279. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.613273.
    1. Lin K, Fu T, Wu C, Wang Y, Liu J, Hsieh C, et al. Minimal detectable change and clinically important difference of the Stroke Impact Scale in stroke patients. Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2010;24(5):486–492. doi: 10.1177/1545968309356295.
    1. Carman KL, Dardess P, Maurer M, Sofaer S, Adams K, Bechtel C, et al. Patient and family engagement: a framework for understanding the elements and developing interventions and policies. Health Aff Proj Hope. 2013;32(2):223–231. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1133.
    1. Pomey M-P, Flora L, Karazivan P, Dumez V, Lebel P, Vanier M-C, et al. Le « Montreal model » : enjeux du partenariat relationnel entre patients et professionnels de la santé. 2015;Santé Publique 2015/HS (S1):41–50.
    1. Joule R-V, Beauvois J-L. Une theorie psychosociale: La theorie de l’engagement. Perspectives commerciales. Rech Appl En Mark. 1989;4(1):79–90.
    1. Direction collaboration et partenariat patient (DCPP). Guide de recrutement des patients partenaires. 2015. Report No.: Université de Montréal.
    1. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134(8):663–694. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012.
    1. Bardin L. L’analyse de contenu. puf. 2013. (Quadrige Manuels).
    1. Griffey RT, Shin N, Jones S, Aginam N, Gross M, Kinsella Y, et al. The impact of teach-back on comprehension of discharge instructions and satisfaction among emergency patients with limited health literacy: A randomized, controlled study. J Commun Healthc. 2015;8(1):10–21. doi: 10.1179/1753807615Y.0000000001.
    1. Ha Dinh TT, Bonner A, Clark R, Ramsbotham J, Hines S. The effectiveness of the teach-back method on adherence and self-management in health education for people with chronic disease: a systematic review. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Rep. 2016;14(1):210–247. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2016-2296.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi