The YOU CALL-WE CALL randomized clinical trial: Impact of a multimodal support intervention after a mild stroke

Rochette, Annie, Korner-Bitensky, Nicol, Bishop, Duane, Teasell, Robert, White, Carole L., Bravo, Gina, Cote, Robert, Green, Teri, Lebrun, Louise-Helene, Lanthier, Sylvain, Kapral, Moira, & Bayley, Mark (2013) The YOU CALL-WE CALL randomized clinical trial: Impact of a multimodal support intervention after a mild stroke. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 6(6), pp. 674-679.

View at publisher

Abstract

Background

Comparison of a multimodal intervention WE CALL (study initiated phone support/information provision) versus a passive intervention YOU CALL (participant can contact a resource person) in individuals with first mild stroke.

Methods and Results

This study is a single-blinded randomized clinical trial. Primary outcome includes unplanned use of health services (participant diaries) for adverse events and quality of life (Euroquol-5D, Quality of Life Index). Secondary outcomes include planned use of health services (diaries), mood (Beck Depression Inventory II), and participation (Assessment of Life Habits [LIFE-H]). Blind assessments were done at baseline, 6, and 12 months. A mixed model approach for statistical analysis on an intention-to-treat basis was used where the group factor was intervention type and occasion factor time, with a significance level of 0.01. We enrolled 186 patients (WE=92; YOU=94) with a mean age of 62.5±12.5 years, and 42.5% were women. No significant differences were seen between groups at 6 months for any outcomes with both groups improving from baseline on all measures (effect sizes ranged from 0.25 to 0.7). The only significant change for both groups from 6 months to 1 year (n=139) was in the social domains of the LIFE-H (increment in score, 0.4/9±1.3 [95% confidence interval, 0.1–0.7]; effect size, 0.3). Qualitatively, the WE CALL intervention was perceived as reassuring, increased insight, and problem solving while decreasing anxiety. Only 6 of 94 (6.4%) YOU CALL participants availed themselves of the intervention.

Conclusions

Although the 2 groups improved equally over time, WE CALL intervention was perceived as helpful, whereas YOU CALL intervention was not used.

Impact and interest:

3 citations in Scopus
Search Google Scholar™
3 citations in Web of Science®

Citation counts are sourced monthly from Scopus and Web of Science® citation databases.

These databases contain citations from different subsets of available publications and different time periods and thus the citation count from each is usually different. Some works are not in either database and no count is displayed. Scopus includes citations from articles published in 1996 onwards, and Web of Science® generally from 1980 onwards.

Citations counts from the Google Scholar™ indexing service can be viewed at the linked Google Scholar™ search.

ID Code: 85174
Item Type: Journal Article
Refereed: Yes
Additional URLs:
Keywords: affect, rehabilitation, quality of life, patient participation, life support care
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000375
ISSN: 1941-7705
Subjects: Australian and New Zealand Standard Research Classification > MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES (110000) > NURSING (111000) > Nursing not elsewhere classified (111099)
Divisions: Current > QUT Faculties and Divisions > Faculty of Health
Current > Institutes > Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation
Current > Schools > School of Nursing
Copyright Owner: © 2013 American Heart Association, Inc.
Deposited On: 07 Jul 2015 23:42
Last Modified: 17 Jul 2015 03:16

Export: EndNote | Dublin Core | BibTeX

Repository Staff Only: item control page