Abstract
Background
Training family carers to provide evidence-based rehabilitation to stroke patients could address the recognized deficiency of access to stroke rehabilitation in low-resource settings. However, our randomized controlled trial in India (ATTEND) found that this model of care was not superior to usual care alone.
Aims
This process evaluation aimed to better understand trial outcomes through assessing trial implementation and exploring patients’, carers’, and providers’ perspectives.
Methods
Our mixed methods study included process, healthcare use data and patient demographics from all sites; observations and semi-structured interviews with participants (22 patients, 22 carers, and 28 health providers) from six sampled sites.
Results
Intervention fidelity and adherence to the trial protocol was high across the 14 sites; however, early supported discharge (an intervention component) was not implemented. Within both randomized groups, some form of rehabilitation was widely accessed. ATTEND stroke coordinators provided counseling and perceived that sustaining patients’ motivation to continue with rehabilitation in the face of significant emotional and financial stress as a key challenge. The intervention was perceived as an acceptable community-based package with education as an important component in raising the poor awareness of stroke. Many participants viewed family-led rehabilitation as a necessary model of care for poor and rural populations who could not access rehabilitation.
Conclusion
Difficulty in sustaining patient and carer motivation for rehabilitation without ongoing support, and greater than anticipated access to routine rehabilitation may explain the lack of benefit in the trial. Nonetheless, family-led rehabilitation was seen as a concept worthy of further development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
