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}
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.
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.