改善患有医院相关失调症的老年人的功能:将随机对照试验与现实世界的实践进行比较,从中吸取经验教训。

IF 3.5 4区 医学 Q1 ORTHOPEDICS
Alexander J Garbin, Melissa K Tran, Jeremy Graber, Danielle Derlein, Deborah Currier, Rebecca Altic, Robert Will, Ethan Cumbler, Jeri E Forster, Kathleen K Mangione, Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley
{"title":"改善患有医院相关失调症的老年人的功能:将随机对照试验与现实世界的实践进行比较,从中吸取经验教训。","authors":"Alexander J Garbin, Melissa K Tran, Jeremy Graber, Danielle Derlein, Deborah Currier, Rebecca Altic, Robert Will, Ethan Cumbler, Jeri E Forster, Kathleen K Mangione, Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley","doi":"10.1093/ptj/pzae173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The optimal approach for improving physical function following acute hospitalization is unknown. A recent clinical trial of home health physical therapy compared a high-intensity, progressive, multi-component (PMC) intervention to enhanced usual care (EUC). While both groups improved in physical function, no between-group differences were observed. However, the EUC group received care that differed from real world practice due to standardized treatments and a higher frequency of visits. This study compared a non-randomized true usual care (TUC) group to the EUC and PMC groups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants in the parent trial were randomly assigned to the EUC group (n = 100) and PMC group (n = 100) following hospital discharge. A subset of eligible patients (n = 55) were concurrently enrolled in the TUC group. Both the PMC and EUC groups received strength, activities of daily living, and gait training that differed in intensity but were matched in frequency and duration. TUC group care was determined by the home health agency. The primary outcome at 60-days was the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In comparison to the TUC group, the EUC and PMC groups had significantly greater improvements in SPPB score (EUC: +1.04 points [CI = 0.18-1.90]; PMC: +1.12 points [CI = 0.23-2.00]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While participants in the EUC and PMC groups experienced greater functional recovery compared to those in the TUC group, it cannot be determined whether these differences are due to the interventions received or confounding factors associated with the addition of a third, non-randomized, study group during the trial period.</p><p><strong>Impact: </strong>This study illustrates the importance of design and interpretation of control groups for clinical trials. Further, the differences between the TUC group and the enhanced intervention groups warrant future research exploring whether increasing visits and standardizing care improve function in older adults receiving home health physical therapy after hospital associated deconditioning.</p><p><strong>Lay summary: </strong>Participants in the intervention groups received standardized and more therapy than usual care, and experienced greater functional improvements. However, these differences may be due to factors associated with the addition of a non-randomized group during an ongoing clinical trial.</p>","PeriodicalId":20093,"journal":{"name":"Physical Therapy","volume":"104 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving Function in Older Adults With Hospital-Associated Deconditioning: Lessons Learned Comparing a Randomized Controlled Trial to Real World Practice.\",\"authors\":\"Alexander J Garbin, Melissa K Tran, Jeremy Graber, Danielle Derlein, Deborah Currier, Rebecca Altic, Robert Will, Ethan Cumbler, Jeri E Forster, Kathleen K Mangione, Jennifer E Stevens-Lapsley\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ptj/pzae173\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The optimal approach for improving physical function following acute hospitalization is unknown. A recent clinical trial of home health physical therapy compared a high-intensity, progressive, multi-component (PMC) intervention to enhanced usual care (EUC). While both groups improved in physical function, no between-group differences were observed. However, the EUC group received care that differed from real world practice due to standardized treatments and a higher frequency of visits. This study compared a non-randomized true usual care (TUC) group to the EUC and PMC groups.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants in the parent trial were randomly assigned to the EUC group (n = 100) and PMC group (n = 100) following hospital discharge. A subset of eligible patients (n = 55) were concurrently enrolled in the TUC group. Both the PMC and EUC groups received strength, activities of daily living, and gait training that differed in intensity but were matched in frequency and duration. TUC group care was determined by the home health agency. The primary outcome at 60-days was the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In comparison to the TUC group, the EUC and PMC groups had significantly greater improvements in SPPB score (EUC: +1.04 points [CI = 0.18-1.90]; PMC: +1.12 points [CI = 0.23-2.00]).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While participants in the EUC and PMC groups experienced greater functional recovery compared to those in the TUC group, it cannot be determined whether these differences are due to the interventions received or confounding factors associated with the addition of a third, non-randomized, study group during the trial period.</p><p><strong>Impact: </strong>This study illustrates the importance of design and interpretation of control groups for clinical trials. Further, the differences between the TUC group and the enhanced intervention groups warrant future research exploring whether increasing visits and standardizing care improve function in older adults receiving home health physical therapy after hospital associated deconditioning.</p><p><strong>Lay summary: </strong>Participants in the intervention groups received standardized and more therapy than usual care, and experienced greater functional improvements. However, these differences may be due to factors associated with the addition of a non-randomized group during an ongoing clinical trial.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20093,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physical Therapy\",\"volume\":\"104 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physical Therapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzae173\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ORTHOPEDICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzae173","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:急性住院后改善身体功能的最佳途径尚不清楚。最近一项家庭健康物理治疗的临床试验比较了高强度、渐进式、多组分(PMC)干预与强化常规护理(EUC)。虽然两组的身体机能都有所改善,但没有观察到组间差异。然而,由于标准化的治疗和更高的就诊频率,EUC组接受的护理与现实世界的实践不同。本研究将非随机常规护理(TUC)组与EUC和PMC组进行了比较。方法:父母试验的参与者在出院后随机分为EUC组(n = 100)和PMC组(n = 100)。一组符合条件的患者(n = 55)同时被纳入TUC组。PMC组和EUC组均接受强度不同但频率和持续时间相同的力量、日常生活活动和步态训练。职工大会集体护理由家庭保健机构决定。60天的主要结果是短时间物理性能电池(SPPB)。结果:与TUC组相比,EUC组和PMC组SPPB评分改善显著(EUC: +1.04分[CI = 0.18-1.90];PMC: +1.12点[CI = 0.23-2.00])。结论:虽然与TUC组相比,EUC组和PMC组的参与者经历了更大的功能恢复,但无法确定这些差异是由于所接受的干预措施还是与试验期间增加的第三个非随机研究组相关的混杂因素。影响:本研究说明了设计和解释临床试验对照组的重要性。此外,TUC组和强化干预组之间的差异为未来的研究提供了依据,探讨增加就诊和标准化护理是否能改善住院相关条件改善后接受家庭健康物理治疗的老年人的功能。概要:干预组的参与者接受了标准化和更多的治疗,比常规护理,并经历了更大的功能改善。然而,这些差异可能是由于在正在进行的临床试验中加入非随机组相关的因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Improving Function in Older Adults With Hospital-Associated Deconditioning: Lessons Learned Comparing a Randomized Controlled Trial to Real World Practice.

Objective: The optimal approach for improving physical function following acute hospitalization is unknown. A recent clinical trial of home health physical therapy compared a high-intensity, progressive, multi-component (PMC) intervention to enhanced usual care (EUC). While both groups improved in physical function, no between-group differences were observed. However, the EUC group received care that differed from real world practice due to standardized treatments and a higher frequency of visits. This study compared a non-randomized true usual care (TUC) group to the EUC and PMC groups.

Methods: Participants in the parent trial were randomly assigned to the EUC group (n = 100) and PMC group (n = 100) following hospital discharge. A subset of eligible patients (n = 55) were concurrently enrolled in the TUC group. Both the PMC and EUC groups received strength, activities of daily living, and gait training that differed in intensity but were matched in frequency and duration. TUC group care was determined by the home health agency. The primary outcome at 60-days was the Short Physical Performance Battery (SPPB).

Results: In comparison to the TUC group, the EUC and PMC groups had significantly greater improvements in SPPB score (EUC: +1.04 points [CI = 0.18-1.90]; PMC: +1.12 points [CI = 0.23-2.00]).

Conclusion: While participants in the EUC and PMC groups experienced greater functional recovery compared to those in the TUC group, it cannot be determined whether these differences are due to the interventions received or confounding factors associated with the addition of a third, non-randomized, study group during the trial period.

Impact: This study illustrates the importance of design and interpretation of control groups for clinical trials. Further, the differences between the TUC group and the enhanced intervention groups warrant future research exploring whether increasing visits and standardizing care improve function in older adults receiving home health physical therapy after hospital associated deconditioning.

Lay summary: Participants in the intervention groups received standardized and more therapy than usual care, and experienced greater functional improvements. However, these differences may be due to factors associated with the addition of a non-randomized group during an ongoing clinical trial.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Physical Therapy
Physical Therapy Multiple-
CiteScore
7.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
187
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Physical Therapy (PTJ) engages and inspires an international readership on topics related to physical therapy. As the leading international journal for research in physical therapy and related fields, PTJ publishes innovative and highly relevant content for both clinicians and scientists and uses a variety of interactive approaches to communicate that content, with the expressed purpose of improving patient care. PTJ"s circulation in 2008 is more than 72,000. Its 2007 impact factor was 2.152. The mean time from submission to first decision is 58 days. Time from acceptance to publication online is less than or equal to 3 months and from acceptance to publication in print is less than or equal to 5 months.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信