↓ Skip to main content

Early supported discharge services for people with acute stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
83 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
212 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Early supported discharge services for people with acute stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd000443.pub4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Peter Langhorne, Satu Baylan

Abstract

People with stroke conventionally receive a substantial part of their rehabilitation in hospital. Services have now been developed that offer people in hospital an early discharge with rehabilitation at home (early supported discharge: ESD). To establish if, in comparison with conventional care, services that offer people in hospital with stroke a policy of early discharge with rehabilitation provided in the community (ESD) can: 1) accelerate return home, 2) provide equivalent or better patient and carer outcomes, 3) be acceptable satisfactory to patients and carers, and 4) have justifiable resource implications use. We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (January 2017), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2017, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched January 2017), MEDLINE in Ovid (searched January 2017), Embase in Ovid (searched January 2017), CINAHL in EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to December 2016), and Web of Science (to January 2017). In an effort to identify further published, unpublished, and ongoing trials we searched six trial registries (March 2017). We also performed citation tracking of included studies, checked reference lists of relevant articles, and contacted trialists. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting stroke patients in hospital to receive either conventional care or any service intervention that has provided rehabilitation and support in a community setting with an aim of reducing the duration of hospital care. The primary patient outcome was the composite end-point of death or long-term dependency recorded at the end of scheduled follow-up. Two review authors scrutinised trials, categorised them on their eligibility and extracted data. Where possible we sought standardised data from the primary trialists. We analysed the results for all trials and for subgroups of patients and services, in particular whether the intervention was provided by a co-ordinated multidisciplinary team (co-ordinated ESD team) or not. We assessed risk of bias for the included trials and used GRADE to assess the quality of the body of evidence. We included 17 trials, recruiting 2422 participants, for which outcome data are currently available. Participants tended to be a selected elderly group of stroke survivors with moderate disability. The ESD group showed reductions in the length of hospital stay equivalent to approximately six days (mean difference (MD) -5.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) -3 to -8 days; P < 0.0001; moderate-grade evidence). The primary outcome was available for 16 trials (2359 participants). Overall, the odds ratios (OR) for the outcome of death or dependency at the end of scheduled follow-up (median 6 months; range 3 to 12) was OR 0.80 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.95, P = 0.01, moderate-grade evidence) which equates to five fewer adverse outcomes per 100 patients receiving ESD. The results for death (16 trials; 2116 participants) and death or requiring institutional care (12 trials; 1664 participants) were OR 1.04 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.40, P = 0.81, moderate-grade evidence) and OR 0.75 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.96, P = 0.02, moderate-grade evidence), respectively. Small improvements were also seen in participants' extended activities of daily living scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.14, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.25, P = 0.01, low-grade evidence) and satisfaction with services (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.08 to 2.38, P = 0.02, low-grade evidence). We saw no clear differences in participants' activities of daily living scores, patients subjective health status or mood, or the subjective health status, mood or satisfaction with services of carers. We found low-quality evidence that the risk of readmission to hospital was similar in the ESD and conventional care group (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.51, P = 0.59, low-grade evidence). The evidence for the apparent benefits were weaker at one- and five-year follow-up. Estimated costs from six individual trials ranged from 23% lower to 15% greater for the ESD group in comparison to usual care.In a series of pre-planned analyses, the greatest reductions in death or dependency were seen in the trials evaluating a co-ordinated ESD team with a suggestion of poorer results in those services without a co-ordinated team (subgroup interaction at P = 0.06). Stroke patients with mild to moderate disability at baseline showed greater reductions in death or dependency than those with more severe stroke (subgroup interaction at P = 0.04). Appropriately resourced ESD services with co-ordinated multidisciplinary team input provided for a selected group of stroke patients can reduce long-term dependency and admission to institutional care as well as reducing the length of hospital stay. Results are inconclusive for services without co-ordinated multidisciplinary team input. We observed no adverse impact on the mood or subjective health status of patients or carers, nor on readmission to hospital.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 83 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 212 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 212 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 52 25%
Student > Ph. D. Student 24 11%
Student > Bachelor 23 11%
Researcher 15 7%
Other 14 7%
Other 32 15%
Unknown 52 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 46 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 46 22%
Social Sciences 14 7%
Psychology 11 5%
Neuroscience 7 3%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 62 29%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 56. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 May 2018.
All research outputs
#345,792
of 14,383,792 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#886
of 10,945 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#12,744
of 263,566 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#33
of 256 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,383,792 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,945 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,566 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 256 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.