Family support for stroke: a randomised controlled trial

Citation
J. Mant et al., Family support for stroke: a randomised controlled trial, LANCET, 356(9232), 2000, pp. 808-813
Citations number
31
Categorie Soggetti
General & Internal Medicine","Medical Research General Topics
Journal title
LANCET
ISSN journal
01406736 → ACNP
Volume
356
Issue
9232
Year of publication
2000
Pages
808 - 813
Database
ISI
SICI code
0140-6736(20000902)356:9232<808:FSFSAR>2.0.ZU;2-B
Abstract
Background Attention is currently focused on family care of stroke survivor s, but the effectiveness of support services is unclear. We did a single-bl ind, randomised, controlled trial to assess the impact of family support on stroke patients and their carers. Methods Patients with acute stroke admitted to hospitals in Oxford. UK, wer e assigned family support or normal care within 6 weeks of stroke. After 6 months, we assessed, for carers, knowledge about stroke, Frenchay activitie s index, general health questionnaire-28 scores, caregiver strain index, Da rtmouth co-op charts, short form 36 (SF-36), and satisfaction scores, and, for patients, knowledge about stroke and use of services, Barthel index, Ri vermead mobility index. Frenchay activities index, London handicap scale, h ospital anxiety and depression scales, Dartmouth co-op charts, and satisfac tion. Findings 323 patients and 267 carers were followed up. Carers in the interv ention group had significantly better Frenchay activities indices (p=0.03), SF-36 scores (energy p=0.02. mental health p=0.004, pain p=0.03, physical function p=0.025, and general health perception p=0.02), quality of life on the Dartmouth co-op chart (p=0.01), and satisfaction with understanding of stroke (82 vs 71.%, p=0.04) than those in the control group. Patients' kno wledge about stroke, disability, handicap, quality of life, and satisfactio n with services and understanding of stroke did not differ between groups. Fewer patients in the intervention group than in the control group saw a ph ysiotherapist after discharge (44 vs 56%, p=0.04), but use of other service s was similar. Interpretation Family support significantly increased social activities and improved quality of life for carers, with no significant effects on patien ts.