Cited by 96Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryMedical Practices and RehabilitationNursing care and research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Caregiver-Delivered Stroke Rehabilitation in Rural China: The RECOVER Randomized Controlled Trial

Open access

Abstract

Background and Purpose—: Stroke disability is a major health burden in rural China where rehabilitation services are inadequate. We aimed to determine the effectiveness of a novel nurse-led, caregiver-delivered model of stroke rehabilitation in rural China. Methods—: A multicenter prospective, randomized open, blinded outcome assessed, controlled trial was conducted in 3 rural county hospitals in China: Zhangwu, Liaoning Province (Northeast); Qingtongxia, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region (Northwest); and Dianjiang, Chongqing Municipality (Southwest). Adult patients (age 18–79 years) with residual disability (Barthel Index score ≤80/100) after a recent acute stroke were randomized to a new service model or usual care. The new intervention was multifaceted and was based on a task-shifting / training-the-trainers model, supported by a custom-designed smartphone application, where patients and caregivers received evidence-based in-hospital education and stroke rehabilitation training (focus on mobility, self-care, and toileting), delivered by trained nurses before hospital discharge, and 3 postdischarge support telephone calls. Outcome assessments were undertaken before hospital discharge and at 3 and 6 months. Primary outcome was physical functioning (Barthel Index scores) at 6 months, assessed by research staff blind to treatment allocation, adjusted for baseline covariates in an intention-to-treat analysis. Secondary outcomes included measures of mobility, health-related quality of life, mood, and caregiver burden. The study included a process evaluation that assessed intervention fidelity. Results—: From November 2014 to December 2016, 246 stroke patients were randomized to intervention (n=118) or control (n=128) groups. There was no statistically significant difference in adjusted 6-month Barthel Index scores between groups (70.1 versus 74.1, mean difference, −4.0 [95% CI, −10.0 to 2.9]), nor any differences across the other outcome measures. Process evaluation interviews revealed that the intervention was desirable and positively accepted by nurses, caregivers, and patients but was considered too complex despite efforts to simplify materials for the rural context. Key strategies identified for future studies included the use of community health workers, smartphone application enhancement, and simpler and more frequent training for nurses, caregivers, and patients. Conclusions—: A novel nurse-led, digital supported, caregiver-delivered stroke rehabilitation program did not improve patient physical functioning after stroke in rural China. Further stroke rehabilitation research suitable for resource-poor settings is required, with several components being suggested through stakeholder interviews in our study. Clinical Trial Registration—: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02247921.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/strokeaha.118.021558

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Decision on evaluations and intervention duration was made after reviewing recent and similar published papers showing main changes between groups 3 months after discharge, and Barthel Index and mRS were the most widely used evaluations.

    “Decision on evaluations and intervention duration was made after reviewing recent and similar published papers, as showing main changes between groups 3 months after discharge [3, 4, 49, 53, 58] and being Barthel Index and the mRS the most widely used evaluations [3, 4, 53, 59].”

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 25 · Cited by 96

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. 10.1586/14737167.8.4.349 · DOI
  2. 10.1371/journal.pone.0165341 · DOI
  3. Jianjun, Y, Yongshan, H, Wu, Y, Wenhua, C, Yulian, Z, Xiao, C, et al. The effects of community-based rehabilitation on stroke patients in china: a single-blind, randomized controlled multicentre trial. Clin Rehabil. 2009;23:408–417 · DOI
  4. Xianghong Meng, WW, Hong, Dai. Investigation on current status of rehabilitation of stroke at Chongwen district in Beijing. Chin J Rehabil Med. 2009;24:4.
  5. 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2004.00943.x · DOI
  6. 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31447-2 · DOI
  7. 10.3310/hta17460 · DOI
  8. 10.1002/14651858.CD011058.pub2 · DOI
  9. 10.1016/S0004-9514(14)60285-3 · DOI
  10. 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005983 · DOI
  11. 10.1177/1747493016654290 · DOI
  12. Mahoney, FI, Barthel, DW. Functional evaluation: the barthel index. Md State Med J. 1965;14:61–65.
  13. 10.1161/01.STR.30.8.1538 · DOI
  14. 10.1161/01.STR.0000119385.56094.32 · DOI
  15. 10.1155/2016/9482876 · DOI
  16. 10.1016/j.apmr.2007.06.764 · DOI
  17. 10.1111/appy.12103 · DOI
  18. Gusi, N, Olivares, PR, Rajendram, R. The eq-5d health-related quality of life questionnaire. Preedy, VR, Watson, RR, eds. In: Handbook of Disease Burdens and Quality of Life Measures. New York, NY: Springer; 2010.
  19. 10.1016/j.pedn.2014.04.006 · DOI
  20. Reding, MJ, Potes, E. Rehabilitation outcome following initial unilateral hemispheric stroke. Life table analysis approach. Stroke. 1988;19:1354–1358. · DOI
  21. Yu, J, Yu, Y, Fan, JT, Xu, Y, Hao, FC. Impact of different treatment and evaluation methods on stroke rehabilitation effect. Tianjin Med J. 2010;11:2.
  22. Shah, S, Vanclay, F, Cooper, B. Efficiency, effectiveness, and duration of stroke rehabilitation. Stroke. 1990;21:241–246. · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Zhou, B., Zhang, J., Zhao, Y., Li, X., Anderson, C. S., Xie, B., Wang, N., Zhang, Y., Tang, X., Prvu Bettger, J., Chen, S., Gu, W., Luo, R., Zhao, Q., Li, X., Sun, Z., Lindley, R. I., Lamb, S. E., Wu, Y., Shi, J., & Yan, L. L.
Affiliations
  • First Hospital of China Medical University (CN)
  • Peking University (CN)
  • Ningxia Medical University (CN)
  • Peking University First Hospital (CN)
  • Chongqing Medical University (CN)
  • Duke Clinical Research Institutea (J.P.B.), Duke University, Durham, NC
  • Duke Kunshan University (CN)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Duke University (US)
Venue
Stroke
Published
2019-07
Volume
50
Issue
7
Pages
1825-1830
ISSN
  • 0039-2499 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4628
OpenAlex
W2953328237
Cited by
96
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6
FWCI
6.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • Stroke (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UNSWorks (University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NF-SI-0611-10020)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation › Medical Practices and Rehabilitation
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Nursing care and research
Keywords
stroke rehabilitation, nurse-led intervention, rural China, task shifting, trainer training, mobile application, Barthel Index, physical function, stroke disability, caregiver burden, health-related quality of life, resource-limited settings, community health workers, intervention fidelity, process evaluation
MeSH terms
Smartphone, Stroke Rehabilitation, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, China, Delivery of Health Care, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Prospective Studies, Quality of Life, Rural Population, Treatment Outcome, Caregivers, Cost of Illness, Recovery of Function, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review