Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/26078
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorJanssen, Heidi-
dc.contributor.authorAda, Louise-
dc.contributor.authorMiddleton, Sandy-
dc.contributor.authorPollack, Michael-
dc.contributor.authorNilsson, Michael-
dc.contributor.authorChurilov, Leonid-
dc.contributor.authorBlennerhassett, Jannette M-
dc.contributor.authorFaux, Steven-
dc.contributor.authorNew, Peter-
dc.contributor.authorMcCluskey, Annie-
dc.contributor.authorSpratt, Neil-
dc.contributor.authorBernhardt, Julie-
dc.date2021-
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-24T21:38:51Z-
dc.date.available2021-03-24T21:38:51Z-
dc.date.issued2021-03-19-
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Stroke : Official Journal of the International Stroke Society 2021; online first: 19 Marchen
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/26078-
dc.description.abstractEnvironmental enrichment involves organisation of the environment and provision of equipment to facilitate engagement in physical, cognitive and social activity. In animals with stroke, it promotes brain plasticity and recovery. To assess the feasibility and safety of a patient-driven model of environmental enrichment incorporating access to communal and individual environmental enrichment. A non-randomised cluster trial with blinded measurement involving people with stroke (n=193) in 4 rehabilitation units was carried out. Feasibility was operationalised as activity 10 days after admission to rehabilitation and availability of environmental enrichment. Safety was measured as falls and serious adverse events. Benefit was measured as clinical outcomes at 3 months, by an assessor blinded to group. The experimental group (n=91) spent 7% (95% CI -14 to 0) less time inactive, 9% (95% CI 0 to 19) more time physically, and 6% (95% CI 2 to 10) more time socially active than the control group (n=102). Communal environmental enrichment was available 100% of the time, but individual environmental enrichment was rarely within reach (24%) or sight (39%). There were no between-group differences in serious adverse events or falls at discharge or 3 months nor in clinical outcomes at 3 months. This patient-driven model of environmental enrichment was feasible and safe. However, the very modest increase in activity by people with stroke, and the lack of benefit in clinical outcomes 3 months after stroke do not provide justification for an efficacy trial. ANZCTR 12613000796785Words: 245.en
dc.language.isoeng
dc.subjectClinical trialen
dc.subjectRehabilitationen
dc.subjectStrokeen
dc.subjectactivityen
dc.subjectenvironmental enrichmenten
dc.subjectrecoveryen
dc.titleEXPRESS: Altering the rehabilitation environment to improve stroke survivor activity (AREISSA): a Phase II trial.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleInternational Journal of Stroke : Official Journal of the International Stroke Societyen
dc.identifier.affiliationHunter New England Local Health District, Hunter Medical Research Institute, Lookout Rd, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationThe Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Healthen
dc.identifier.affiliationUniversity of Newcastle, Newcastle , Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationJohn Hunter Hospital, Rehabilitation Medicine, Lookout Road, New Lambton, New Lambton Heights, New South Wales, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationJohn Hunter Hospital, , New Lambton Heights, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationSt Vincent's Health Australia (Sydney), St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne, and Australian Catholic University, Nursing Research Institute, Executive Suite, Level 5 DeLacy Building, St Vincentâs Hospital , Victoria Road, Darlinghurst, New South Wales, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationThe University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine and Health, PO Box 170, Sydney, New South Wales, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationJohn Hunter Hospital, Hunter Medical Research Institute, and The University of Newcastle, Department of Neurology, Newcastle, New South Wales, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationThe University of Sydney, Community Based Health Care Research Unit, Faculty of Health Sciences, Cumberland Campus, PO Box 170, Lidcombe, Lidcombe, New South Wales, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationMonash Health, Department of Medicine, Rehabilitation and Aged Services Program, Cheltenham, Victoria, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationSt Vincent's Health Australia Ltd, Bondi Junction, New South Wales, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationPhysiotherapyen
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/17474930211006999en
dc.type.contentTexten
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-8612-0112en
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0003-1369-5721en
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-7201-4394en
dc.identifier.orcid0000-0002-2787-8484en
dc.identifier.pubmedid33739202
local.name.researcherBlennerhassett, Jannette M
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
crisitem.author.deptMedicine (University of Melbourne)-
crisitem.author.deptThe Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health-
crisitem.author.deptPhysiotherapy-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

88
checked on Nov 8, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.