Community-based programs targeting participation are feasible and effective, but stroke survivors require time to achieve meaningful gains.

A model of community ambulation after stroke was developed and verified. Recognizing important components of community ambulation may assist physiotherapists in determining community ambulation goals, needs, and opportunities in partnership with clients.

No abstract

Interventions for improving community ambulation in individuals with stroke.

Purpose Results of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to inform healthcare decision-making. Research has shown that response shift can impact PROM results. As part of an international collaboration, our goal is to provide a framework regarding the implications of response shift at the level of patient care (micro), healthcare institute (meso), and healthcare policy (macro). Methods Empirical evidence of response shift that can influence patients’ self-reported health and preferences provided the foundation for development of the framework. Measurement validity theory, hermeneutic philosophy, and micro-, meso-, and macro-level healthcare decision-making informed our theoretical analysis. Results At the micro-level, patients’ self-reported health needs to be interpreted via dialogue with the clinician to avoid misinterpretation of PROM data due to response shift. It is also important to consider the potential impact of response shift on study results, when these are used to support decisions. At the meso-level, individual-level data should be examined for response shift before aggregating PROM data for decision-making related to quality improvement, performance monitoring, and accreditation. At the macro-level, critical reflection on the conceptualization of health is required to know whether response shift needs to be controlled for when PROM data are used to inform healthcare coverage. Conclusion Given empirical evidence of response shift, there is a critical need for guidelines and knowledge translation to avoid potential misinterpretations of PROM results and consequential biases in decision-making. Our framework with guiding questions provides a structure for developing strategies to address potential impacts of response shift at micro-, meso-, and macro-levels.

What is known about this topic• Emerging healthcare-recreation partnership model where physical therapists train and support fitness instructors who deliver exercise programmes in recreation centres.• Involvement of knowledgeable and experienced healthcare professionals supports credibility of community exercise programmes.• Model helps increase access to safe and appropriate exercise programmes in the community for individuals with physical disabilities. What this paper adds• Understanding of the nature and extent of literature describing evaluations of community exercise programmes delivered by fitness instructors for people with neurological conditions.• Research is needed across neurological populations, targeting outcomes related to activity, participation, health services and caregivers, with improved reporting on the role of healthcare professionals. AbstractA scoping review was conducted to characterise evaluations of community-based exercise programmes (CBEPs) delivered by fitness instructors to people with neurological conditions. Literature published from 1946 to April 2014 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the grey literature were searched. Search terms included community, programme, exercise, adult, brain disease and spinal cord disease. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts for inclusion. One author reviewed full-text articles to evaluate eligibility. Studies were included if the study objective was to evaluate an exercise programme, the programme was community-based and delivered by fitness instructors, exercise participants were ≥18 years of age and had a neurological condition, and a full-text article was available and written in English. After reviewing 1785 titles and abstracts, 18 (1.01%) articles describing 15 studies were included in the review. One author completed data abstraction from the included studies. A second reviewer independently verified the extracted data for accuracy. Exercise programmes most commonly included people with stroke (47%) and Parkinson's disease (40%), incorporated a stand-alone (80%), multicomponent (20%), group (67%), individual (20%) and combined format (13%), strength training (40%) and functional/task-oriented training (40%), reported a minimum walking requirement (67%), and involved a healthcare professional (HCP) with various roles (53%), including training (27%), advising and supporting (33%). The most commonly examined participant outcomes were health-related quality of life (60%) and functional balance (47%). More research is needed to develop CBEPs targeting individuals with low ambulatory function and multiple neurological conditions, to develop recommendations for the involvement of HCPs in CBEPs and document their involvement, and to evaluate system-level outcomes such as cost, healthcare utilisation and impact on caregivers. The findings support a number of considerations to guide future research into CBEPs delivered by fitness instructors for individuals with neurological conditions.

BackgroundLimited outdoor walking is a marker of frailty and a risk factor for decline in mobility and self-care functioning, social isolation, and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQL). Objectives were to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and preliminary effect of a supervised outdoor walking group and interactive workshop compared to the workshop alone in increasing outdoor walking activity and identify an optimal method for estimating outdoor walking activity among older adults who infrequently walk outdoors.MethodsA pilot 2-parallel-group randomized controlled trial was conducted. Adults aged ≥ 65 years who reported walking ≤ 20 min/week outdoors were randomized in a 2:1 ratio to receive the GO-OUT program (1-day workshop and 9-week outdoor walking group), or the workshop alone. An external site conducted the randomization after workshop completion. The eight workshop activity stations aimed to build knowledge and skills to safely walk outdoors. The group-based outdoor walking program consisted of repetitive practice of mobility tasks at local parks. The primary outcome of outdoor walking activity used an activity monitor and GPS; secondary outcomes included aerobic, balance, and walking capacity; physical activity; participation; mood; and HRQL. Blinded outcome assessors evaluated participants at 0, 3, and 6 months. Qualitative interviews occurred after 3 months; data were analyzed with qualitative description. Quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics.ResultsForty-eight individuals were screened; 9 were eligible and randomized to the GO-OUT (n = 6) or workshop (n = 3) group. Data from 9 participants were analyzed. Mean age was 77 and 74 years in the GO-OUT and workshop groups, respectively. No falls occurred during the workshop and outdoor walking program. Average attendance of the walking group was 61%. All participants attended the evaluations and workshop. An analysis method combining data from activity monitors and GPS was developed to estimate outdoor walking. Themes from the qualitative analysis included the barriers to outdoor walking, impact of the workshop and GO-OUT walking group, and feasibility and acceptance of the assessment and intervention strategies.ConclusionsThe trial protocol was deemed safe and feasible. Results were used to inform changes to the protocol to conduct a full-scale study.Trial registrationClinical Trials.gov: NCT02339467.

IntroductionA theory-based, task-oriented, community walking programme can increase outdoor walking activity among older adults to optimise functional independence, social participation and well-being. The study objective is to determine if there is a difference in the change in outdoor walking activity from baseline to 10 weeks, 5.5 months and 12 months after receiving a 1-day interactive workshop and outdoor walking programme (Getting Older Adults Outdoors (GO-OUT)) compared with the workshop and weekly reminders (WR) in older adults with difficulty walking outdoors.Methods and analysisA randomised controlled trial is being conducted in four urban Canadian communities. We will stratify 240 individuals by site and participant type (ie, individual vs spousal/friend pair) and randomise to either the GO-OUT or WR intervention. The GO-OUT intervention involves a 1-day workshop, where participants complete eight interactive stations to build knowledge and skills to walk outside, followed by a 10-week group outdoor walking programme (two 1-hour sessions/week) led by a physiotherapist or kinesiologist in parks. The WR intervention consists of the same workshop and 10 weekly telephone reminders to facilitate outdoor walking. The primary outcome measure is mean outdoor walking time in minutes/week derived from accelerometry and global positioning system data. GO-OUT is powered to detect an effect size of 0.4, given α=0.05, β=0.20, equal number of participants/group and a 20% attrition rate. Secondary outcomes include physical activity, lifespace mobility, participation, health-related quality of life, balance, leg strength, walking self-efficacy, walking speed, walking distance/endurance and mood.Ethics and disseminationGO-OUT has received ethics approval at all sites. A Data Safety Monitoring Board will monitor adverse events. We will disseminate findings through lay summaries, conference presentations and journal articles.Trial registration numberNCT03292510 (Pre-results).