var bibbase_data = {"data":"\"Loading..\"\n\n
\n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n \n\n \n \n\n \n\n \n
\n generated by\n \n \"bibbase.org\"\n\n \n
\n \n\n
\n\n \n\n\n
\n\n Excellent! Next you can\n create a new website with this list, or\n embed it in an existing web page by copying & pasting\n any of the following snippets.\n\n
\n JavaScript\n (easiest)\n
\n \n <script src=\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.zotero.org%2Fusers%2F6607533%2Fcollections%2FGN5HU4X9%2Fitems%3Fkey%3DhGXLq241MCQA3ow7rlTIV2gY%26format%3Dbibtex%26limit%3D100&jsonp=1&jsonp=1\"></script>\n \n
\n\n PHP\n
\n \n <?php\n $contents = file_get_contents(\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.zotero.org%2Fusers%2F6607533%2Fcollections%2FGN5HU4X9%2Fitems%3Fkey%3DhGXLq241MCQA3ow7rlTIV2gY%26format%3Dbibtex%26limit%3D100&jsonp=1\");\n print_r($contents);\n ?>\n \n
\n\n iFrame\n (not recommended)\n
\n \n <iframe src=\"https://bibbase.org/show?bib=https%3A%2F%2Fapi.zotero.org%2Fusers%2F6607533%2Fcollections%2FGN5HU4X9%2Fitems%3Fkey%3DhGXLq241MCQA3ow7rlTIV2gY%26format%3Dbibtex%26limit%3D100&jsonp=1\"></iframe>\n \n
\n\n

\n For more details see the documention.\n

\n
\n
\n\n
\n\n This is a preview! To use this list on your own web site\n or create a new web site from it,\n create a free account. The file will be added\n and you will be able to edit it in the File Manager.\n We will show you instructions once you've created your account.\n
\n\n
\n\n

To the site owner:

\n\n

Action required! Mendeley is changing its\n API. In order to keep using Mendeley with BibBase past April\n 14th, you need to:\n

    \n
  1. renew the authorization for BibBase on Mendeley, and
  2. \n
  3. update the BibBase URL\n in your page the same way you did when you initially set up\n this page.\n
  4. \n
\n

\n\n

\n \n \n Fix it now\n

\n
\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n \n
\n
\n  \n 2021\n \n \n (3)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Economic analysis of the ‘Take Charge’ intervention for people following stroke: Results from a randomised trial.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Te Ao, B.; Harwood, M.; Fu, V.; Weatherall, M.; McPherson, K.; Taylor, W. J; McRae, A.; Thomson, T.; Gommans, J.; Green, G.; Ranta, A.; Hanger, C.; Riley, J.; and McNaughton, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Clinical Rehabilitation,026921552110407. August 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"EconomicPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{te_ao_economic_2021,\n\ttitle = {Economic analysis of the ‘{Take} {Charge}’ intervention for people following stroke: {Results} from a randomised trial},\n\tissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\n\tshorttitle = {Economic analysis of the ‘{Take} {Charge}’ intervention for people following stroke},\n\turl = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/02692155211040727},\n\tdoi = {10.1177/02692155211040727},\n\tabstract = {Objective:\n              To undertake an economic analysis of the Take Charge intervention as part of the Taking Charge after Stroke (TaCAS) study.\n            \n            \n              Design:\n              An open, parallel-group, randomised trial comparing active and control interventions with blinded outcome assessment\n            \n            \n              Setting:\n              Community.\n            \n            \n              Participants:\n              Adults ( n = 400) discharged to community, non-institutional living following acute stroke.\n            \n            \n              Interventions:\n              The Take Charge intervention, a strengths based, self-directed rehabilitation intervention, in two doses (one or two sessions), and a control intervention (no Take Charge sessions).\n            \n            \n              Measures:\n              The cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved for the period between randomisation (always post hospital discharge) and 12 months following acute stroke. QALYs were calculated from the EuroQol-5D-5L. Costs of stroke-related and non-health care were obtained by questionnaire, hospital records and the New Zealand Ministry of Health.\n            \n            \n              Results:\n              One-year post hospital discharge cost of care was mean (95\\% CI) \\$US4706 (3758–6014) for the Take Charge intervention group and \\$6118 (4350–8005) for control, mean (95\\% CI) difference \\$ −1412 (−3553 to +729). Health utility scores were mean (95\\% CI) 0.75 (0.73–0.77) for Take Charge and 0.71 (0.67–0.75) for control, mean (95\\% CI) difference 0.04 (0.0–0.08). Cost per QALY gained for the Take Charge intervention was \\$US −35,296 (=£ −25,524, € −30,019). Sensitivity analyses confirm Take Charge is cost-effective, even at a very low willingness-to-pay threshold. With a threshold of \\$US5000 per QALY, the probability that Take Charge is cost-effective is 99\\%.\n            \n            \n              Conclusion:\n              Take Charge is cost-effective and probably cost saving.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-09-09},\n\tjournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\n\tauthor = {Te Ao, Braden and Harwood, Matire and Fu, Vivian and Weatherall, Mark and McPherson, Kathryn and Taylor, William J and McRae, Anna and Thomson, Tom and Gommans, John and Green, Geoff and Ranta, Annemarei and Hanger, Carl and Riley, Judith and McNaughton, Harry},\n\tmonth = aug,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {026921552110407},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Objective: To undertake an economic analysis of the Take Charge intervention as part of the Taking Charge after Stroke (TaCAS) study. Design: An open, parallel-group, randomised trial comparing active and control interventions with blinded outcome assessment Setting: Community. Participants: Adults ( n = 400) discharged to community, non-institutional living following acute stroke. Interventions: The Take Charge intervention, a strengths based, self-directed rehabilitation intervention, in two doses (one or two sessions), and a control intervention (no Take Charge sessions). Measures: The cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) saved for the period between randomisation (always post hospital discharge) and 12 months following acute stroke. QALYs were calculated from the EuroQol-5D-5L. Costs of stroke-related and non-health care were obtained by questionnaire, hospital records and the New Zealand Ministry of Health. Results: One-year post hospital discharge cost of care was mean (95% CI) $US4706 (3758–6014) for the Take Charge intervention group and $6118 (4350–8005) for control, mean (95% CI) difference $ −1412 (−3553 to +729). Health utility scores were mean (95% CI) 0.75 (0.73–0.77) for Take Charge and 0.71 (0.67–0.75) for control, mean (95% CI) difference 0.04 (0.0–0.08). Cost per QALY gained for the Take Charge intervention was $US −35,296 (=£ −25,524, € −30,019). Sensitivity analyses confirm Take Charge is cost-effective, even at a very low willingness-to-pay threshold. With a threshold of $US5000 per QALY, the probability that Take Charge is cost-effective is 99%. Conclusion: Take Charge is cost-effective and probably cost saving.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Reducing Ethnic and Geographic Inequities to Optimise New Zealand Stroke Care (REGIONS Care): Protocol for a Nationwide Observational Study.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Ranta, A.; Thompson, S.; Harwood, M. L. N.; Cadilhac, D. A.; Barber, P. A.; Davis, A. J.; Gommans, J. H.; Fink, J. N.; McNaughton, H. K.; Denison, H.; Corbin, M.; Feigin, V.; Abernethy, V.; Levack, W.; Douwes, J.; Girvan, J.; and Wilson, A.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n JMIR Research Protocols, 10(1): e25374. January 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ReducingPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n  \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{ranta_reducing_2021,\n\ttitle = {Reducing {Ethnic} and {Geographic} {Inequities} to {Optimise} {New} {Zealand} {Stroke} {Care} ({REGIONS} {Care}): {Protocol} for a {Nationwide} {Observational} {Study}},\n\tvolume = {10},\n\tissn = {1929-0748},\n\tshorttitle = {Reducing {Ethnic} and {Geographic} {Inequities} to {Optimise} {New} {Zealand} {Stroke} {Care} ({REGIONS} {Care})},\n\turl = {https://www.researchprotocols.org/2021/1/e25374},\n\tdoi = {10.2196/25374},\n\tabstract = {Background\n              Stroke systems of care differ between larger urban and smaller rural settings and it is unclear to what extent this may impact on patient outcomes.  Ethnicity influences stroke risk factors and care delivery as well as patient outcomes in nonstroke settings.  Little is known about the impact of ethnicity on poststroke care, especially in Māori and Pacific populations.\n            \n            \n              Objective\n              Our goal is to describe the protocol for the Reducing Ethnic and Geographic Inequities to Optimise New Zealand Stroke Care (REGIONS Care) study.\n            \n            \n              Methods\n              This large, nationwide observational study assesses the impact of rurality and ethnicity on best practice stroke care access and outcomes involving all 28 New Zealand hospitals caring for stroke patients, by capturing every stroke patient admitted to hospital during the 2017-2018 study period. In addition, it explores current access barriers through consumer focus groups and consumer, carer, clinician, manager, and policy-maker surveys. It also assesses the economic impact of care provided at different types of hospitals and to patients of different ethnicities and explores the cost-efficacy of individual interventions and care bundles. Finally, it compares manual data collection to routine health administrative data and explores the feasibility of developing outcome models using only administrative data and the cost-efficacy of using additional manually collected registry data. Regarding sample size estimates, in Part 1, Study A, 2400 participants are needed to identify a 10\\% difference between up to four geographic subgroups at 90\\% power with an α value of .05 and 10\\% to 20\\% loss to follow-up.  In Part 1, Study B, a sample of 7645 participants was expected to include an estimated 850 Māori and 419 Pacific patients and to provide over 90\\% and over 80\\% power, respectively. Regarding Part 2, 50\\% of the patient or carer surveys, 40 provider surveys, and 10 focus groups were needed to achieve saturation of themes. The main outcome is the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 3 months.  Secondary outcomes include mRS scores; EQ-5D-3L (5-dimension, 3-level EuroQol questionnaire) scores; stroke recurrence; vascular events; death; readmission at 3, 6, and 12 months; cost of care; and themes around access barriers.\n            \n            \n              Results\n              The study is underway, with national and institutional ethics approvals in place. A total of 2379 patients have been recruited for Part 1, Study A; 6837 patients have been recruited for Part 1, Study B; 10 focus groups have been conducted and 70 surveys have been completed in Part 2.  Data collection has essentially been completed, including follow-up assessment; however, primary and secondary analyses, data linkage, data validation, and health economics analysis are still underway.\n            \n            \n              Conclusions\n              The methods of this study may provide the basis for future epidemiological studies that will guide care improvements in other countries and populations.\n            \n            \n              International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)\n              DERR1-10.2196/25374},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\turldate = {2021-04-30},\n\tjournal = {JMIR Research Protocols},\n\tauthor = {Ranta, Annemarei and Thompson, Stephanie and Harwood, Matire Louise Ngarongoa and Cadilhac, Dominique Ann-Michele and Barber, Peter Alan and Davis, Alan John and Gommans, John Henry and Fink, John Newton and McNaughton, Harry Karel and Denison, Hayley and Corbin, Marine and Feigin, Valery and Abernethy, Virginia and Levack, William and Douwes, Jeroen and Girvan, Jacqueline and Wilson, Andrew},\n\tmonth = jan,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {e25374},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Background Stroke systems of care differ between larger urban and smaller rural settings and it is unclear to what extent this may impact on patient outcomes. Ethnicity influences stroke risk factors and care delivery as well as patient outcomes in nonstroke settings. Little is known about the impact of ethnicity on poststroke care, especially in Māori and Pacific populations. Objective Our goal is to describe the protocol for the Reducing Ethnic and Geographic Inequities to Optimise New Zealand Stroke Care (REGIONS Care) study. Methods This large, nationwide observational study assesses the impact of rurality and ethnicity on best practice stroke care access and outcomes involving all 28 New Zealand hospitals caring for stroke patients, by capturing every stroke patient admitted to hospital during the 2017-2018 study period. In addition, it explores current access barriers through consumer focus groups and consumer, carer, clinician, manager, and policy-maker surveys. It also assesses the economic impact of care provided at different types of hospitals and to patients of different ethnicities and explores the cost-efficacy of individual interventions and care bundles. Finally, it compares manual data collection to routine health administrative data and explores the feasibility of developing outcome models using only administrative data and the cost-efficacy of using additional manually collected registry data. Regarding sample size estimates, in Part 1, Study A, 2400 participants are needed to identify a 10% difference between up to four geographic subgroups at 90% power with an α value of .05 and 10% to 20% loss to follow-up. In Part 1, Study B, a sample of 7645 participants was expected to include an estimated 850 Māori and 419 Pacific patients and to provide over 90% and over 80% power, respectively. Regarding Part 2, 50% of the patient or carer surveys, 40 provider surveys, and 10 focus groups were needed to achieve saturation of themes. The main outcome is the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include mRS scores; EQ-5D-3L (5-dimension, 3-level EuroQol questionnaire) scores; stroke recurrence; vascular events; death; readmission at 3, 6, and 12 months; cost of care; and themes around access barriers. Results The study is underway, with national and institutional ethics approvals in place. A total of 2379 patients have been recruited for Part 1, Study A; 6837 patients have been recruited for Part 1, Study B; 10 focus groups have been conducted and 70 surveys have been completed in Part 2. Data collection has essentially been completed, including follow-up assessment; however, primary and secondary analyses, data linkage, data validation, and health economics analysis are still underway. Conclusions The methods of this study may provide the basis for future epidemiological studies that will guide care improvements in other countries and populations. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) DERR1-10.2196/25374\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The effect of the Take Charge intervention on mood, motivation, activation and risk factor management: Analysis of secondary data from the Taking Charge after Stroke (TaCAS) trial.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n McNaughton, H.; Weatherall, M.; McPherson, K.; Fu, V.; Taylor, W. J; McRae, A.; Thomson, T.; Gommans, J.; Green, G.; Harwood, M.; Ranta, A.; Hanger, C.; and Riley, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Clinical Rehabilitation,026921552199364. February 2021.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ThePaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n  \n \n 12 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{mcnaughton_effect_2021,\n\ttitle = {The effect of the {Take} {Charge} intervention on mood, motivation, activation and risk factor management: {Analysis} of secondary data from the {Taking} {Charge} after {Stroke} ({TaCAS}) trial},\n\tissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\n\tshorttitle = {The effect of the {Take} {Charge} intervention on mood, motivation, activation and risk factor management},\n\turl = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269215521993648},\n\tdoi = {10.1177/0269215521993648},\n\tabstract = {Objective:\n              To use secondary data from the Taking Charge after Stroke study to explore mechanisms for the positive effect of the Take Charge intervention on physical health, advanced activities of daily living and independence for people after acute stroke.\n            \n            \n              Design:\n              An open, parallel-group, randomised trial with two active and one control intervention and blinded outcome assessment.\n            \n            \n              Setting:\n              Community.\n            \n            \n              Participants:\n              Adults ( n = 400) discharged to community, non-institutional living following acute stroke.\n            \n            \n              Interventions:\n              One, two, or zero sessions of the Take Charge intervention, a self-directed rehabilitation intervention which helps a person with stroke take charge of their own recovery.\n            \n            \n              Measures:\n              Twelve months after stroke: Mood (Patient Health Questionnaire-2, Mental Component Summary of the Short Form 36); ‘ability to Take Charge’ using a novel measure, the Autonomy-Mastery-Purpose-Connectedness (AMP-C) score; activation (Patient Activation Measure); body mass index (BMI), blood pressure (BP) and medication adherence (Medication Adherence Questionnaire).\n            \n            \n              Results:\n              Follow-up was near-complete (388/390 (99.5\\%)) of survivors at 12 months. Mean age (SD) was 72.0 (12.5) years. There were no significant differences in mood, activation, ‘ability to Take Charge’, medication adherence, BMI or BP by randomised group at 12 months. There was a significant positive association between baseline AMP-C scores and 12-month outcome for control participants (1.73 (95\\%CI 0.90 to 2.56)) but not for the Take Charge groups combined (0.34 (95\\%CI −0.17 to 0.85)).\n            \n            \n              Conclusion:\n              The mechanism by which Take Charge is effective remains uncertain. However, our findings support a hypothesis that baseline variability in motivation, mastery and connectedness may be modified by the Take Charge intervention.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2021-04-30},\n\tjournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\n\tauthor = {McNaughton, Harry and Weatherall, Mark and McPherson, Kathryn and Fu, Vivian and Taylor, William J and McRae, Anna and Thomson, Tom and Gommans, John and Green, Geoff and Harwood, Matire and Ranta, Annemarei and Hanger, Carl and Riley, Judith},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2021},\n\tpages = {026921552199364},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Objective: To use secondary data from the Taking Charge after Stroke study to explore mechanisms for the positive effect of the Take Charge intervention on physical health, advanced activities of daily living and independence for people after acute stroke. Design: An open, parallel-group, randomised trial with two active and one control intervention and blinded outcome assessment. Setting: Community. Participants: Adults ( n = 400) discharged to community, non-institutional living following acute stroke. Interventions: One, two, or zero sessions of the Take Charge intervention, a self-directed rehabilitation intervention which helps a person with stroke take charge of their own recovery. Measures: Twelve months after stroke: Mood (Patient Health Questionnaire-2, Mental Component Summary of the Short Form 36); ‘ability to Take Charge’ using a novel measure, the Autonomy-Mastery-Purpose-Connectedness (AMP-C) score; activation (Patient Activation Measure); body mass index (BMI), blood pressure (BP) and medication adherence (Medication Adherence Questionnaire). Results: Follow-up was near-complete (388/390 (99.5%)) of survivors at 12 months. Mean age (SD) was 72.0 (12.5) years. There were no significant differences in mood, activation, ‘ability to Take Charge’, medication adherence, BMI or BP by randomised group at 12 months. There was a significant positive association between baseline AMP-C scores and 12-month outcome for control participants (1.73 (95%CI 0.90 to 2.56)) but not for the Take Charge groups combined (0.34 (95%CI −0.17 to 0.85)). Conclusion: The mechanism by which Take Charge is effective remains uncertain. However, our findings support a hypothesis that baseline variability in motivation, mastery and connectedness may be modified by the Take Charge intervention.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2020\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The Taking Charge After Stroke Study: How We Tested a Community Stroke Rehabilitation Intervention in a Randomized Controlled Trial.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Fu, V. W. Y.; and McNaughton, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n SAGE Publications Ltd, 1 Oliver's Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom, 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ThePaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@book{fu_taking_2020,\n\taddress = {1 Oliver's Yard, 55 City Road, London EC1Y 1SP United Kingdom},\n\ttitle = {The {Taking} {Charge} {After} {Stroke} {Study}: {How} {We} {Tested} a {Community} {Stroke} {Rehabilitation} {Intervention} in a {Randomized} {Controlled} {Trial}},\n\tisbn = {978-1-5297-3093-7},\n\tshorttitle = {The {Taking} {Charge} {After} {Stroke} {Study}},\n\turl = {https://methods.sagepub.com/case/taking-charge-after-stroke-community-stroke-rehabilitation-intervention-rct},\n\turldate = {2020-09-14},\n\tpublisher = {SAGE Publications Ltd},\n\tauthor = {Fu, Vivian Wai Yin and McNaughton, Harry},\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tdoi = {10.4135/9781529730937},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Taking Charge after Stroke: A randomized controlled trial of a person-centered, self-directed rehabilitation intervention.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Fu, V.; Weatherall, M.; McPherson, K.; Taylor, W.; McRae, A.; Thomson, T.; Gommans, J.; Green, G.; Harwood, M.; Ranta, A.; Hanger, C.; Riley, J.; and McNaughton, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n International Journal of Stroke,174749302091514. April 2020.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"TakingPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n  \n \n 2 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{fu_taking_2020-1,\n\ttitle = {Taking {Charge} after {Stroke}: {A} randomized controlled trial of a person-centered, self-directed rehabilitation intervention},\n\tissn = {1747-4930, 1747-4949},\n\tshorttitle = {Taking {Charge} after {Stroke}},\n\turl = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1747493020915144},\n\tdoi = {10.1177/1747493020915144},\n\tabstract = {Background and purpose\n              “Take Charge” is a novel, community-based self-directed rehabilitation intervention which helps a person with stroke take charge of their own recovery. In a previous randomized controlled trial, a single Take Charge session improved independence and health-related quality of life 12 months following stroke in Māori and Pacific New Zealanders. We tested the same intervention in three doses (zero, one, or two sessions) in a larger study and in a broader non-Māori and non-Pacific population with stroke. We aimed to confirm whether the Take Charge intervention improved quality of life at 12 months after stroke in a different population and whether two sessions were more effective than one.\n            \n            \n              Methods\n              We randomized 400 people within 16 weeks of acute stroke who had been discharged to institution-free community living at seven centers in New Zealand to a single Take Charge session (TC1, n = 132), two Take Charge sessions six weeks apart (TC2, n = 138), or a control intervention (n = 130). Take Charge is a “talking therapy” that encourages a sense of purpose, autonomy, mastery, and connectedness with others. The primary outcome was the Physical Component Summary score of the Short Form 36 at 12 months following stroke comparing any Take Charge intervention to control.\n            \n            \n              Results\n              Of the 400 people randomized (mean age 72.2 years, 58.5\\% male), 10 died and two withdrew from the study. The remaining 388 (97\\%) people were followed up at 12 months after stroke. Twelve months following stroke, participants in either of the TC groups (i.e. TC1 + TC2) scored 2.9 (95\\% confidence intervals (CI) 0.95 to 4.9, p = 0.004) points higher (better) than control on the Short Form 36 Physical Component Summary. This difference remained significant when adjusted for pre-specified baseline variables. There was a dose effect with Short Form 36 Physical Component Summary scores increasing by 1.9 points (95\\% CI 0.8 to 3.1, p {\\textless} 0.001) for each extra Take Charge session received. Exposure to the Take Charge intervention was associated with reduced odds of being dependent (modified Rankin Scale 3 to 5) at 12 months (TC1 + TC2 12\\% versus control 19.5\\%, odds ratio 0.55, 95\\% CI 0.31 to 0.99, p = 0.045).\n            \n            \n              Conclusions\n              Confirming the previous randomized controlled trial outcome, Take Charge—a low-cost, person-centered, self-directed rehabilitation intervention after stroke—improved health-related quality of life and independence.\n            \n            \n              Clinical trial registration-URL\n              http://www.anzctr.org.au . Unique identifier: ACTRN12615001163594},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\turldate = {2020-09-14},\n\tjournal = {International Journal of Stroke},\n\tauthor = {Fu, Vivian and Weatherall, Mark and McPherson, Kathryn and Taylor, William and McRae, Anna and Thomson, Tom and Gommans, John and Green, Geoff and Harwood, Matire and Ranta, Annemarei and Hanger, Carl and Riley, Judith and McNaughton, Harry},\n\tmonth = apr,\n\tyear = {2020},\n\tpages = {174749302091514},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Background and purpose “Take Charge” is a novel, community-based self-directed rehabilitation intervention which helps a person with stroke take charge of their own recovery. In a previous randomized controlled trial, a single Take Charge session improved independence and health-related quality of life 12 months following stroke in Māori and Pacific New Zealanders. We tested the same intervention in three doses (zero, one, or two sessions) in a larger study and in a broader non-Māori and non-Pacific population with stroke. We aimed to confirm whether the Take Charge intervention improved quality of life at 12 months after stroke in a different population and whether two sessions were more effective than one. Methods We randomized 400 people within 16 weeks of acute stroke who had been discharged to institution-free community living at seven centers in New Zealand to a single Take Charge session (TC1, n = 132), two Take Charge sessions six weeks apart (TC2, n = 138), or a control intervention (n = 130). Take Charge is a “talking therapy” that encourages a sense of purpose, autonomy, mastery, and connectedness with others. The primary outcome was the Physical Component Summary score of the Short Form 36 at 12 months following stroke comparing any Take Charge intervention to control. Results Of the 400 people randomized (mean age 72.2 years, 58.5% male), 10 died and two withdrew from the study. The remaining 388 (97%) people were followed up at 12 months after stroke. Twelve months following stroke, participants in either of the TC groups (i.e. TC1 + TC2) scored 2.9 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.95 to 4.9, p = 0.004) points higher (better) than control on the Short Form 36 Physical Component Summary. This difference remained significant when adjusted for pre-specified baseline variables. There was a dose effect with Short Form 36 Physical Component Summary scores increasing by 1.9 points (95% CI 0.8 to 3.1, p \\textless 0.001) for each extra Take Charge session received. Exposure to the Take Charge intervention was associated with reduced odds of being dependent (modified Rankin Scale 3 to 5) at 12 months (TC1 + TC2 12% versus control 19.5%, odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.99, p = 0.045). Conclusions Confirming the previous randomized controlled trial outcome, Take Charge—a low-cost, person-centered, self-directed rehabilitation intervention after stroke—improved health-related quality of life and independence. Clinical trial registration-URL http://www.anzctr.org.au . Unique identifier: ACTRN12615001163594\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2019\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n The efficacy of problem solving therapy to reduce post stroke emotional distress in younger (18-65) stroke survivors.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Chalmers, C.; Leathem, J.; Bennett, S.; McNaughton, H.; and Mahawish, K.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Disability and Rehabilitation, 41(7): 753–762. 2019.\n Number: 7\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{chalmers_efficacy_2019,\n\ttitle = {The efficacy of problem solving therapy to reduce post stroke emotional distress in younger (18-65) stroke survivors},\n\tvolume = {41},\n\tissn = {1464-5165},\n\tdoi = {10.1080/09638288.2017.1408707},\n\tabstract = {PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy of problem solving therapy for reducing the emotional distress experienced by younger stroke survivors.\nMETHOD: A non-randomized waitlist controlled design was used to compare outcome measures for the treatment group and a waitlist control group at baseline and post-waitlist/post-therapy. After the waitlist group received problem solving therapy an analysis was completed on the pooled outcome measures at baseline, post-treatment, and three-month follow-up.\nRESULTS: Changes on outcome measures between baseline and post-treatment (n = 13) were not significantly different between the two groups, treatment (n = 13), and the waitlist control group (n = 16) (between-subject design). The pooled data (n = 28) indicated that receiving problem solving therapy significantly reduced participants levels of depression and anxiety and increased quality of life levels from baseline to follow up (within-subject design), however, methodological limitations, such as the lack of a control group reduce the validity of this finding.\nCONCLUSION: The between-subject results suggest that there was no significant difference between those that received problem solving therapy and a waitlist control group between baseline and post-waitlist/post-therapy. The within-subject design suggests that problem solving therapy may be beneficial for younger stroke survivors when they are given some time to learn and implement the skills into their day to day life. However, additional research with a control group is required to investigate this further. This study provides limited evidence for the provision of support groups for younger stroke survivors post stroke, however, it remains unclear about what type of support this should be. Implications for Rehabilitation Problem solving therapy is no more effective for reducing post stroke distress than a wait-list control group. Problem solving therapy may be perceived as helpful and enjoyable by younger stroke survivors. Younger stroke survivors may use the skills learnt from problem solving therapy to solve problems in their day to day lives. Younger stroke survivors may benefit from age appropriate psychological support; however, future research is needed to determine what type of support this should be.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {7},\n\tjournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\n\tauthor = {Chalmers, Charlotte and Leathem, Janet and Bennett, Simon and McNaughton, Harry and Mahawish, Karim},\n\tyear = {2019},\n\tpmid = {29172817},\n\tnote = {Number: 7},\n\tkeywords = {Adult, Anxiety, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Problem Solving, Psychological Distress, Psychosocial Support Systems, Psychotherapy, Quality of Life, Stroke, Stroke Rehabilitation, Survivors, anxiety, depression, perceived support, problem solving, therapy, younger people},\n\tpages = {753--762},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n PURPOSE: To investigate the efficacy of problem solving therapy for reducing the emotional distress experienced by younger stroke survivors. METHOD: A non-randomized waitlist controlled design was used to compare outcome measures for the treatment group and a waitlist control group at baseline and post-waitlist/post-therapy. After the waitlist group received problem solving therapy an analysis was completed on the pooled outcome measures at baseline, post-treatment, and three-month follow-up. RESULTS: Changes on outcome measures between baseline and post-treatment (n = 13) were not significantly different between the two groups, treatment (n = 13), and the waitlist control group (n = 16) (between-subject design). The pooled data (n = 28) indicated that receiving problem solving therapy significantly reduced participants levels of depression and anxiety and increased quality of life levels from baseline to follow up (within-subject design), however, methodological limitations, such as the lack of a control group reduce the validity of this finding. CONCLUSION: The between-subject results suggest that there was no significant difference between those that received problem solving therapy and a waitlist control group between baseline and post-waitlist/post-therapy. The within-subject design suggests that problem solving therapy may be beneficial for younger stroke survivors when they are given some time to learn and implement the skills into their day to day life. However, additional research with a control group is required to investigate this further. This study provides limited evidence for the provision of support groups for younger stroke survivors post stroke, however, it remains unclear about what type of support this should be. Implications for Rehabilitation Problem solving therapy is no more effective for reducing post stroke distress than a wait-list control group. Problem solving therapy may be perceived as helpful and enjoyable by younger stroke survivors. Younger stroke survivors may use the skills learnt from problem solving therapy to solve problems in their day to day lives. Younger stroke survivors may benefit from age appropriate psychological support; however, future research is needed to determine what type of support this should be.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2017\n \n \n (4)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n An audit of coagulation screening in patients presenting to the emergency department for potential stroke thrombolysis: Stroke thrombolysis and point-of-care.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Thorne, K.; McNaughton, H.; and Weatherall, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Internal Medicine Journal, 47(2): 189–193. February 2017.\n Number: 2\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"AnPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{thorne_audit_2017,\n\ttitle = {An audit of coagulation screening in patients presenting to the emergency department for potential stroke thrombolysis: {Stroke} thrombolysis and point-of-care},\n\tvolume = {47},\n\tissn = {14440903},\n\tshorttitle = {An audit of coagulation screening in patients presenting to the emergency department for potential stroke thrombolysis},\n\turl = {http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/imj.13323},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/imj.13323},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\turldate = {2020-09-14},\n\tjournal = {Internal Medicine Journal},\n\tauthor = {Thorne, Katie and McNaughton, Harry and Weatherall, Mark},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tnote = {Number: 2},\n\tpages = {189--193},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n The Taking Charge After Stroke (TaCAS) study protocol: a multicentre, investigator-blinded, randomised controlled trial comparing the effect of a single Take Charge session, two Take Charge sessions and control intervention on health-related quality of life 12 months after stroke for non-Māori, non-Pacific adult New Zealanders discharged to community living.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Fu, V. W. Y.; Weatherall, M.; and McNaughton, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n BMJ Open, 7(5): e016512. May 2017.\n Number: 5\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ThePaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 3 downloads\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{fu_taking_2017,\n\ttitle = {The {Taking} {Charge} {After} {Stroke} ({TaCAS}) study protocol: a multicentre, investigator-blinded, randomised controlled trial comparing the effect of a single {Take} {Charge} session, two {Take} {Charge} sessions and control intervention on health-related quality of life 12 months after stroke for non-{Māori}, non-{Pacific} adult {New} {Zealanders} discharged to community living},\n\tvolume = {7},\n\tissn = {2044-6055, 2044-6055},\n\tshorttitle = {The {Taking} {Charge} {After} {Stroke} ({TaCAS}) study protocol},\n\turl = {http://bmjopen.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016512},\n\tdoi = {10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016512},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {5},\n\turldate = {2020-09-14},\n\tjournal = {BMJ Open},\n\tauthor = {Fu, Vivian Wai Yin and Weatherall, Mark and McNaughton, Harry},\n\tmonth = may,\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tnote = {Number: 5},\n\tpages = {e016512},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Randomised Evaluation of Active Control of Temperature versus Ordinary Temperature Management (REACTOR) trial.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Young, P. J.; Bailey, M. J.; Beasley, R. W.; Freebairn, R. C.; Hammond, N. E.; Haren, F. M. P. v.; Harward, M. L.; Henderson, S. J.; Mackle, D. M.; McArthur, C. J.; McGuinness, S. P.; Myburgh, J. A.; Saxena, M. K.; Turner, A.; Webb, S. A. R.; Bellomo, R.; and The ANZICS Clinical Trials Group\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Critical Care and Resuscitation: Journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine, 19(1): 81–87. March 2017.\n Number: 1\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{young_protocol_2017,\n\ttitle = {Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the {Randomised} {Evaluation} of {Active} {Control} of {Temperature} versus {Ordinary} {Temperature} {Management} ({REACTOR}) trial},\n\tvolume = {19},\n\tissn = {1441-2772},\n\tabstract = {BACKGROUND: Body temperature can be reduced in febrile patients in the intensive care unit using medicines and physical cooling devices, but it is not known whether systematically preventing and treating fever reduces body temperature compared with standard care.\nOBJECTIVE: To describe the study protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Randomised Evaluation of Active Control of Temperature versus Ordinary Temperature Management (REACTOR) trial.\nDESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Protocol for a phase II, multicentre trial to be conducted in Australian and New Zealand ICUs admitting adult patients. We will recruit 184 adults without acute brain injury who are expected to be ventilated in the ICU beyond the day after randomisation. We will use open, random, parallel assignment to systematic prevention and treatment of fever, or to standard temperature management.\nMAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point will be mean body temperature, calculated from body temperatures measured 6-hourly for 7 days (168 hours) or until ICU discharge, whichever is sooner. Secondary end points are ICU-free days, in-hospital and cause-specific mortality (censored at Day 90) and survival time to Day 90 (censored at hospital discharge).\nRESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The trial will determine whether active temperature control reduces body temperature compared with standard care. It is primarily being conducted to establish whether a phase III trial with a patient-centred end point of Day 90 mortality is justified and feasible.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tjournal = {Critical Care and Resuscitation: Journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Young, Paul J. and Bailey, Michael J. and Beasley, Richard W. and Freebairn, Ross C. and Hammond, Naomi E. and Haren, Frank M. P. van and Harward, Meg L. and Henderson, Seton J. and Mackle, Diane M. and McArthur, Colin J. and McGuinness, Shay P. and Myburgh, John A. and Saxena, Manoj K. and Turner, Anne and Webb, Steve A. R. and Bellomo, Rinaldo and {The ANZICS Clinical Trials Group}},\n\tmonth = mar,\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tpmid = {28215136},\n\tnote = {Number: 1},\n\tkeywords = {Clinical Protocols, Fever, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Research Design},\n\tpages = {81--87},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n BACKGROUND: Body temperature can be reduced in febrile patients in the intensive care unit using medicines and physical cooling devices, but it is not known whether systematically preventing and treating fever reduces body temperature compared with standard care. OBJECTIVE: To describe the study protocol and statistical analysis plan for the Randomised Evaluation of Active Control of Temperature versus Ordinary Temperature Management (REACTOR) trial. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Protocol for a phase II, multicentre trial to be conducted in Australian and New Zealand ICUs admitting adult patients. We will recruit 184 adults without acute brain injury who are expected to be ventilated in the ICU beyond the day after randomisation. We will use open, random, parallel assignment to systematic prevention and treatment of fever, or to standard temperature management. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary end point will be mean body temperature, calculated from body temperatures measured 6-hourly for 7 days (168 hours) or until ICU discharge, whichever is sooner. Secondary end points are ICU-free days, in-hospital and cause-specific mortality (censored at Day 90) and survival time to Day 90 (censored at hospital discharge). RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The trial will determine whether active temperature control reduces body temperature compared with standard care. It is primarily being conducted to establish whether a phase III trial with a patient-centred end point of Day 90 mortality is justified and feasible.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n An audit of coagulation screening in patients presenting to the emergency department for potential stroke thrombolysis.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Thorne, K.; McNaughton, H.; and Weatherall, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Internal medicine journal, 47(2): 189–193. 2017.\n Number: 2 Publisher: Wiley Online Library\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{thorne_audit_2017-1,\n\ttitle = {An audit of coagulation screening in patients presenting to the emergency department for potential stroke thrombolysis},\n\tvolume = {47},\n\tissn = {1444-0903},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\tjournal = {Internal medicine journal},\n\tauthor = {Thorne, Katie and McNaughton, Harry and Weatherall, Mark},\n\tyear = {2017},\n\tnote = {Number: 2\nPublisher: Wiley Online Library},\n\tpages = {189--193},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2016\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A Binational Multicenter Pilot Feasibility Randomized Controlled Trial of Early Goal-Directed Mobilization in the ICU*.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Hodgson, C. L; Bailey, M.; Bellomo, R.; Berney, S.; Buhr, H.; Denehy, L.; Gabbe, B.; Harrold, M.; Higgins, A.; Iwashyna, T. J; Papworth, R.; Parke, R.; Patman, S.; Presneill, J.; Saxena, M.; Skinner, E.; Tipping, C.; Young, P.; and Webb, S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Critical Care Medicine, 44(6). 2016.\n Number: 6\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"APaper\n  \n \n\n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{hodgson_binational_2016,\n\ttitle = {A {Binational} {Multicenter} {Pilot} {Feasibility} {Randomized} {Controlled} {Trial} of {Early} {Goal}-{Directed} {Mobilization} in the {ICU}*},\n\tvolume = {44},\n\tissn = {0090-3493},\n\turl = {https://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal/Fulltext/2016/06000/A_Binational_Multicenter_Pilot_Feasibility.16.aspx},\n\tabstract = {Objectives: To determine if the early goal-directed mobilization intervention could be delivered to patients receiving mechanical ventilation with increased maximal levels of activity compared with standard care. Design: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Setting: Five ICUs in Australia and New Zealand. Participants: Fifty critically ill adults mechanically ventilated for greater than 24 hours. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to either early goal-directed mobilization (intervention) or to standard care (control). Early goal-directed mobilization comprised functional rehabilitation treatment conducted at the highest level of activity possible for that patient assessed by the ICU mobility scale while receiving mechanical ventilation. Measurements and Main Results: The ICU mobility scale, strength, ventilation duration, ICU and hospital length of stay, and total inpatient (acute and rehabilitation) stay as well as 6-month post-ICU discharge health-related quality of life, activities of daily living, and anxiety and depression were recorded. The mean age was 61 years and 60\\% were men. The highest level of activity (ICU mobility scale) recorded during the ICU stay between the intervention and control groups was mean (95\\% CI) 7.3 (6.3–8.3) versus 5.9 (4.9–6.9), p = 0.05. The proportion of patients who walked in ICU was almost doubled with early goal-directed mobilization (intervention n = 19 [66\\%] vs control n = 8 [38\\%]; p = 0.05). There was no difference in total inpatient stay (d) between the intervention versus control groups (20 [15–35] vs 34 [18–43]; p = 0.37). There were no adverse events. Conclusions: Key Practice Points: Delivery of early goal-directed mobilization within a randomized controlled trial was feasible, safe and resulted in increased duration and level of active exercises.},\n\tnumber = {6},\n\tjournal = {Critical Care Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Hodgson, Carol L and Bailey, Michael and Bellomo, Rinaldo and Berney, Susan and Buhr, Heidi and Denehy, Linda and Gabbe, Belinda and Harrold, Megan and Higgins, Alisa and Iwashyna, Theodore J and Papworth, Rebecca and Parke, Rachael and Patman, Shane and Presneill, Jeffrey and Saxena, Manoj and Skinner, Elizabeth and Tipping, Claire and Young, Paul and Webb, Steven},\n\tyear = {2016},\n\tnote = {Number: 6},\n\tkeywords = {early mobilization, intensive care, mechanical ventilation, physical therapy, randomized trial, rehabilitation},\n}\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Objectives: To determine if the early goal-directed mobilization intervention could be delivered to patients receiving mechanical ventilation with increased maximal levels of activity compared with standard care. Design: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Setting: Five ICUs in Australia and New Zealand. Participants: Fifty critically ill adults mechanically ventilated for greater than 24 hours. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to either early goal-directed mobilization (intervention) or to standard care (control). Early goal-directed mobilization comprised functional rehabilitation treatment conducted at the highest level of activity possible for that patient assessed by the ICU mobility scale while receiving mechanical ventilation. Measurements and Main Results: The ICU mobility scale, strength, ventilation duration, ICU and hospital length of stay, and total inpatient (acute and rehabilitation) stay as well as 6-month post-ICU discharge health-related quality of life, activities of daily living, and anxiety and depression were recorded. The mean age was 61 years and 60% were men. The highest level of activity (ICU mobility scale) recorded during the ICU stay between the intervention and control groups was mean (95% CI) 7.3 (6.3–8.3) versus 5.9 (4.9–6.9), p = 0.05. The proportion of patients who walked in ICU was almost doubled with early goal-directed mobilization (intervention n = 19 [66%] vs control n = 8 [38%]; p = 0.05). There was no difference in total inpatient stay (d) between the intervention versus control groups (20 [15–35] vs 34 [18–43]; p = 0.37). There were no adverse events. Conclusions: Key Practice Points: Delivery of early goal-directed mobilization within a randomized controlled trial was feasible, safe and resulted in increased duration and level of active exercises.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2015\n \n \n (4)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit: an international survey of 97 units in 11 countries.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n KRAG, M; PERNER, A; WETTERSLEV, J; WISE, M P; BORTHWICK, M; BENDEL, S; MCARTHUR, C; COOK, D; NIELSEN, N; PELOSI, P; KEUS, F; GUTTORMSEN, A B; MOLLER, A D; MØLLER, M H; and Collaborators, t. S.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 59(5): 576–585. May 2015.\n Number: 5 Publisher: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd (10.1111)\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"StressPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{krag_stress_2015,\n\ttitle = {Stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit: an international survey of 97 units in 11 countries},\n\tvolume = {59},\n\tissn = {0001-5172},\n\turl = {https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.12508},\n\tdoi = {10.1111/aas.12508},\n\tabstract = {Background Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) may decrease the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but the risk of infection may be increased. In this study, we aimed to describe SUP practices in adult ICUs. We hypothesised that patient selection for SUP varies both within and between countries. Methods Adult ICUs were invited to participate in the survey. We registered country, type of hospital, type and size of ICU, preferred SUP agent, presence of local guideline, reported indications for SUP, criteria for discontinuing SUP, and concerns about adverse effects. Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences between groups. Results Ninety-seven adult ICUs in 11 countries participated (eight European). All but one ICU used SUP, and 64\\% (62/97) reported having a guideline for the use of SUP. Proton pump inhibitors were the most common SUP agent, used in 66\\% of ICUs (64/97), and H2-receptor antagonists were used 31\\% (30/97) of the units. Twenty-three different indications for SUP were reported, the most frequent being mechanical ventilation. All patients were prescribed SUP in 26\\% (25/97) of the ICUs. Adequate enteral feeding was the most frequent reason for discontinuing SUP, but 19\\% (18/97) continued SUP upon ICU discharge. The majority expressed concern about nosocomial pneumonia and Clostridium difficile infection with the use of SUP. Conclusions In this international survey, most participating ICUs reported using SUP, primarily proton pump inhibitors, but many did not have a guideline; indications varied considerably and concern existed about infectious complications.},\n\tnumber = {5},\n\tjournal = {Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica},\n\tauthor = {KRAG, M and PERNER, A and WETTERSLEV, J and WISE, M P and BORTHWICK, M and BENDEL, S and MCARTHUR, C and COOK, D and NIELSEN, N and PELOSI, P and KEUS, F and GUTTORMSEN, A B and MOLLER, A D and MØLLER, M H and Collaborators, the SUP-ICU},\n\tmonth = may,\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tnote = {Number: 5\nPublisher: John Wiley \\& Sons, Ltd (10.1111)},\n\tpages = {576--585},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Background Stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) may decrease the incidence of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but the risk of infection may be increased. In this study, we aimed to describe SUP practices in adult ICUs. We hypothesised that patient selection for SUP varies both within and between countries. Methods Adult ICUs were invited to participate in the survey. We registered country, type of hospital, type and size of ICU, preferred SUP agent, presence of local guideline, reported indications for SUP, criteria for discontinuing SUP, and concerns about adverse effects. Fisher's exact test was used to assess differences between groups. Results Ninety-seven adult ICUs in 11 countries participated (eight European). All but one ICU used SUP, and 64% (62/97) reported having a guideline for the use of SUP. Proton pump inhibitors were the most common SUP agent, used in 66% of ICUs (64/97), and H2-receptor antagonists were used 31% (30/97) of the units. Twenty-three different indications for SUP were reported, the most frequent being mechanical ventilation. All patients were prescribed SUP in 26% (25/97) of the ICUs. Adequate enteral feeding was the most frequent reason for discontinuing SUP, but 19% (18/97) continued SUP upon ICU discharge. The majority expressed concern about nosocomial pneumonia and Clostridium difficile infection with the use of SUP. Conclusions In this international survey, most participating ICUs reported using SUP, primarily proton pump inhibitors, but many did not have a guideline; indications varied considerably and concern existed about infectious complications.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Early temperature and mortality in critically ill patients with acute neurological diseases: trauma and stroke differ from infection.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Saxena, M.; Young, P.; Pilcher, D.; Bailey, M.; Harrison, D.; Bellomo, R.; Finfer, S.; Beasley, R.; Hyam, J.; Menon, D.; Rowan, K.; and Myburgh, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Intensive care medicine, 41. 2015.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{saxena_early_2015,\n\ttitle = {Early temperature and mortality in critically ill patients with acute neurological diseases: trauma and stroke differ from infection},\n\tvolume = {41},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s00134-015-3676-6},\n\tjournal = {Intensive care medicine},\n\tauthor = {Saxena, Manoj and Young, Paul and Pilcher, David and Bailey, Michael and Harrison, David and Bellomo, Rinaldo and Finfer, Simon and Beasley, Richard and Hyam, Jonathan and Menon, David and Rowan, Kathryn and Myburgh, John},\n\tyear = {2015},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Early mobilization and recovery in mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU: a bi-national, multi-centre, prospective cohort study.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n The TEAM Study Investigators\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Critical Care, 19(1): 81. 2015.\n Number: 1\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"EarlyPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{the_team_study_investigators_early_2015,\n\ttitle = {Early mobilization and recovery in mechanically ventilated patients in the {ICU}: a bi-national, multi-centre, prospective cohort study},\n\tvolume = {19},\n\tissn = {1364-8535},\n\turl = {https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-015-0765-4},\n\tdoi = {10.1186/s13054-015-0765-4},\n\tabstract = {The aim of this study was to investigate current mobilization practice, strength at ICU discharge and functional recovery at 6 months among mechanically ventilated ICU patients.},\n\tnumber = {1},\n\tjournal = {Critical Care},\n\tauthor = {{The TEAM Study Investigators}},\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tnote = {Number: 1},\n\tpages = {81},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n The aim of this study was to investigate current mobilization practice, strength at ICU discharge and functional recovery at 6 months among mechanically ventilated ICU patients.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n A Multicenter Randomized Trial of Continuous versus Intermittent β-Lactam Infusion in Severe Sepsis.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Dulhunty, J. M; Roberts, J. A; Davis, J. S; Webb, S. A R; Bellomo, R.; Gomersall, C.; Shirwadkar, C.; Eastwood, G. M; Myburgh, J.; Paterson, D. L; Starr, T.; Paul, S. K; and Lipman, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 192(11): 1298–1305. July 2015.\n Number: 11 Publisher: American Thoracic Society - AJRCCM\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"APaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{dulhunty_multicenter_2015,\n\ttitle = {A {Multicenter} {Randomized} {Trial} of {Continuous} versus {Intermittent} β-{Lactam} {Infusion} in {Severe} {Sepsis}},\n\tvolume = {192},\n\tissn = {1073-449X},\n\turl = {https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201505-0857OC},\n\tdoi = {10.1164/rccm.201505-0857OC},\n\tabstract = {Rationale: Continuous infusion of ?-lactam antibiotics may improve outcomes because of time-dependent antibacterial activity compared with intermittent dosing.Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of continuous versus intermittent infusion in patients with severe sepsis.Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 25 intensive care units (ICUs). Participants commenced on piperacillin?tazobactam, ticarcillin?clavulanate, or meropenem were randomized to receive the prescribed antibiotic via continuous or 30-minute intermittent infusion for the remainder of the treatment course or until ICU discharge. The primary outcome was the number of alive ICU-free days at Day 28. Secondary outcomes were 90-day survival, clinical cure 14 days post antibiotic cessation, alive organ failure?free days at Day 14, and duration of bacteremia.Measurements and Main Results: We enrolled 432 eligible participants with a median age of 64 years and an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 20. There was no difference in ICU-free days: 18 days (interquartile range, 2?24) and 20 days (interquartile range, 3?24) in the continuous and intermittent groups (P?=?0.38). There was no difference in 90-day survival: 74.3\\% (156 of 210) and 72.5\\% (158 of 218); hazard ratio, 0.91 (95\\% confidence interval, 0.63?1.31; P?=?0.61). Clinical cure was 52.4\\% (111 of 212) and 49.5\\% (109 of 220); odds ratio, 1.12 (95\\% confidence interval, 0.77?1.63; P?=?0.56). There was no difference in organ failure?free days (6 d; P?=?0.27) and duration of bacteremia (0 d; P?=?0.24).Conclusions: In critically ill patients with severe sepsis, there was no difference in outcomes between ?-lactam antibiotic administration by continuous and intermittent infusion.Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number (ACT RN12612000138886).},\n\tnumber = {11},\n\tjournal = {American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Dulhunty, Joel M and Roberts, Jason A and Davis, Joshua S and Webb, Steven A R and Bellomo, Rinaldo and Gomersall, Charles and Shirwadkar, Charudatt and Eastwood, Glenn M and Myburgh, John and Paterson, David L and Starr, Therese and Paul, Sanjoy K and Lipman, Jeffrey},\n\tmonth = jul,\n\tyear = {2015},\n\tnote = {Number: 11\nPublisher: American Thoracic Society - AJRCCM},\n\tpages = {1298--1305},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Rationale: Continuous infusion of ?-lactam antibiotics may improve outcomes because of time-dependent antibacterial activity compared with intermittent dosing.Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of continuous versus intermittent infusion in patients with severe sepsis.Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial in 25 intensive care units (ICUs). Participants commenced on piperacillin?tazobactam, ticarcillin?clavulanate, or meropenem were randomized to receive the prescribed antibiotic via continuous or 30-minute intermittent infusion for the remainder of the treatment course or until ICU discharge. The primary outcome was the number of alive ICU-free days at Day 28. Secondary outcomes were 90-day survival, clinical cure 14 days post antibiotic cessation, alive organ failure?free days at Day 14, and duration of bacteremia.Measurements and Main Results: We enrolled 432 eligible participants with a median age of 64 years and an Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 20. There was no difference in ICU-free days: 18 days (interquartile range, 2?24) and 20 days (interquartile range, 3?24) in the continuous and intermittent groups (P?=?0.38). There was no difference in 90-day survival: 74.3% (156 of 210) and 72.5% (158 of 218); hazard ratio, 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.63?1.31; P?=?0.61). Clinical cure was 52.4% (111 of 212) and 49.5% (109 of 220); odds ratio, 1.12 (95% confidence interval, 0.77?1.63; P?=?0.56). There was no difference in organ failure?free days (6 d; P?=?0.27) and duration of bacteremia (0 d; P?=?0.24).Conclusions: In critically ill patients with severe sepsis, there was no difference in outcomes between ?-lactam antibiotic administration by continuous and intermittent infusion.Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number (ACT RN12612000138886).\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2014\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Stroke rehabilitation services in New Zealand: a survey of service configuration, capacity and guideline adherence.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n McNaughton, H.; McRae, A.; Green, G.; Abernethy, G.; and Gommans, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Stroke, 6: 6L. 2014.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{mcnaughton_stroke_2014,\n\ttitle = {Stroke rehabilitation services in {New} {Zealand}: a survey of service configuration, capacity and guideline adherence},\n\tvolume = {6},\n\tjournal = {Stroke},\n\tauthor = {McNaughton, Harry and McRae, Anna and Green, Geoff and Abernethy, Ginny and Gommans, John},\n\tyear = {2014},\n\tpages = {6L},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2012\n \n \n (5)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Taking charge after stroke: promoting self-directed rehabilitation to improve quality of life – a randomized controlled trial.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Harwood, M.; Weatherall, M.; Talemaitoga, A.; Barber, P A.; Gommans, J.; Taylor, W.; McPherson, K.; and McNaughton, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Clinical Rehabilitation, 26(6): 493–501. June 2012.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"TakingPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{harwood_taking_2012,\n\ttitle = {Taking charge after stroke: promoting self-directed rehabilitation to improve quality of life – a randomized controlled trial},\n\tvolume = {26},\n\tissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\n\tshorttitle = {Taking charge after stroke},\n\turl = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269215511426017},\n\tdoi = {10.1177/0269215511426017},\n\tabstract = {Objective: Few community interventions following stroke enhance activity, participation or quality of life. We tested two novel community interventions designed to promote self-directed rehabilitation following stroke.\n            Design: This was a randomized, controlled parallel group 2×2 trial.\n            Setting: Community.\n            Participants: Maori and Pacific New Zealanders, {\\textgreater}15 years old, randomized within three months of a new stroke.\n            Interventions: A DVD of four inspirational stories by Maori and Pacific people with stroke and a ‘Take Charge Session’ – a single structured risk factor and activities of daily living assessment, designed to facilitate self-directed rehabilitation.\n            Main measures: Primary outcomes were Health-related Quality of Life (Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores of the Short Form 36 (SF-36)) 12 months from randomization. Secondary outcomes were Barthel Index, Frenchay Activities Index, Carer Strain Index and modified Rankin score.\n            Results: One hundred and seventy-two people were randomized with 139 (80.8\\%) followed up at 12 months post randomization. The effect of the Take Charge Session on SF-36 PCS at 12 months was 6.0 (95\\% confidence interval (CI) 2.0 to 10.0) and of the DVD was 0.9 (95\\% CI −3.1 to 4.9). Participants allocated to the Take Charge Session were less likely to have a modified Rankin score of {\\textgreater}2 (odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95\\% CI 0.2 to 0.89) and their carers had lower (better) Carer Strain Index scores (−1.5, 95\\% CI −2.8 to −0.1).\n            Conclusion: A simple, low-cost intervention in the community phase of stroke recovery aiming to promote self-directed rehabilitation improved outcomes.},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {6},\n\turldate = {2021-09-09},\n\tjournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\n\tauthor = {Harwood, Matire and Weatherall, Mark and Talemaitoga, Api and Barber, P Alan and Gommans, John and Taylor, William and McPherson, Kathryn and McNaughton, Harry},\n\tmonth = jun,\n\tyear = {2012},\n\tpages = {493--501},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n Objective: Few community interventions following stroke enhance activity, participation or quality of life. We tested two novel community interventions designed to promote self-directed rehabilitation following stroke. Design: This was a randomized, controlled parallel group 2×2 trial. Setting: Community. Participants: Maori and Pacific New Zealanders, \\textgreater15 years old, randomized within three months of a new stroke. Interventions: A DVD of four inspirational stories by Maori and Pacific people with stroke and a ‘Take Charge Session’ – a single structured risk factor and activities of daily living assessment, designed to facilitate self-directed rehabilitation. Main measures: Primary outcomes were Health-related Quality of Life (Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores of the Short Form 36 (SF-36)) 12 months from randomization. Secondary outcomes were Barthel Index, Frenchay Activities Index, Carer Strain Index and modified Rankin score. Results: One hundred and seventy-two people were randomized with 139 (80.8%) followed up at 12 months post randomization. The effect of the Take Charge Session on SF-36 PCS at 12 months was 6.0 (95% confidence interval (CI) 2.0 to 10.0) and of the DVD was 0.9 (95% CI −3.1 to 4.9). Participants allocated to the Take Charge Session were less likely to have a modified Rankin score of \\textgreater2 (odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.89) and their carers had lower (better) Carer Strain Index scores (−1.5, 95% CI −2.8 to −0.1). Conclusion: A simple, low-cost intervention in the community phase of stroke recovery aiming to promote self-directed rehabilitation improved outcomes.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n An assessment of the Hua Oranga outcome instrument and comparison to other outcome measures in an intervention study with Maori and Pacific people following stroke.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Harwood, M.; Weatherall, M.; Talemaitoga, A.; Barber, P. A.; Gommans, J.; Taylor, W.; McPherson, K.; and McNaughton, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The New Zealand Medical Journal, 125(1364): 57–67. October 2012.\n Number: 1364\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{harwood_assessment_2012,\n\ttitle = {An assessment of the {Hua} {Oranga} outcome instrument and comparison to other outcome measures in an intervention study with {Maori} and {Pacific} people following stroke},\n\tvolume = {125},\n\tissn = {1175-8716},\n\tabstract = {AIM: Health outcomes research for Maori has been hampered by the lack of adequately validated instruments that directly address outcomes of importance to Maori, framed by a Maori perspective of health. Hua Oranga is an outcome instrument developed for Maori with mental illness that uses a holistic view of Maori health to determine improvements in physical, mental, spiritual and family domains of health. Basic psychometric work for Hua Oranga is lacking. We sought to explore the psychometric properties of the instrument and compare its responsiveness alongside other, more established tools in an intervention study involving Maori and Pacific people following acute stroke.\nMETHODS: Randomised 2x2 controlled trial of Maori and Pacific people following acute stroke with two interventions aimed at facilitating self-directed rehabilitation, and with follow-up at 12 months after randomisation. Primary outcome measures were the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) of the Short Form 36 (SF36) at 12 months. Hua Oranga was used as a secondary outcome measure for participants at 12 months and for carers and whanau (extended family). Psychometric properties of Hua Oranga were explored using plots and correlation coefficients, principal factors analysis and scree plots.\nRESULTS: 172 participants were randomised, of whom 139 (80.8\\%) completed follow-up. Of these, 135 (97\\%) completed the Hua Oranga and 117 (84.2\\%) completed the PCS and MCS of the SF36. Eighty-nine carers completed the Hua Oranga. Total Hua Oranga scores and PCS improved significantly for one intervention group but not the other. Total Hua Oranga scores for carers improved significantly for both interventions. Total Hua Oranga score correlated moderately with the PCS (correlation coefficient 0.55, p{\\textless}0.001). Factor analysis suggested that Hua Oranga measures two and not four factors; one 'physical-mental' and one 'spiritual-family'.\nCONCLUSION: The Hua Oranga instrument, developed for Maori people with mental illness, showed good responsiveness and adequate psychometric properties in Maori and Pacific people after stroke. Its simplicity, relative brevity, minimal cost and adequate psychometric properties should favour its use in future studies with both Maori and Pacific people. Suggestions are made for refinements to the measure. These should be tested in a new population before Hua Oranga is recommended for general use in a clinical setting.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {1364},\n\tjournal = {The New Zealand Medical Journal},\n\tauthor = {Harwood, Matire and Weatherall, Mark and Talemaitoga, Api and Barber, P. Alan and Gommans, John and Taylor, William and McPherson, Kathryn and McNaughton, Harry},\n\tmonth = oct,\n\tyear = {2012},\n\tpmid = {23242398},\n\tnote = {Number: 1364},\n\tkeywords = {Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Caregivers, Continuity of Patient Care, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, New Zealand, Oceanic Ancestry Group, Outcome Assessment, Health Care, Patient Satisfaction, Physical Therapy Modalities, Prognosis, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Risk Assessment, Severity of Illness Index, Sex Factors, Stroke, Stroke Rehabilitation, Treatment Outcome},\n\tpages = {57--67},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n AIM: Health outcomes research for Maori has been hampered by the lack of adequately validated instruments that directly address outcomes of importance to Maori, framed by a Maori perspective of health. Hua Oranga is an outcome instrument developed for Maori with mental illness that uses a holistic view of Maori health to determine improvements in physical, mental, spiritual and family domains of health. Basic psychometric work for Hua Oranga is lacking. We sought to explore the psychometric properties of the instrument and compare its responsiveness alongside other, more established tools in an intervention study involving Maori and Pacific people following acute stroke. METHODS: Randomised 2x2 controlled trial of Maori and Pacific people following acute stroke with two interventions aimed at facilitating self-directed rehabilitation, and with follow-up at 12 months after randomisation. Primary outcome measures were the Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) of the Short Form 36 (SF36) at 12 months. Hua Oranga was used as a secondary outcome measure for participants at 12 months and for carers and whanau (extended family). Psychometric properties of Hua Oranga were explored using plots and correlation coefficients, principal factors analysis and scree plots. RESULTS: 172 participants were randomised, of whom 139 (80.8%) completed follow-up. Of these, 135 (97%) completed the Hua Oranga and 117 (84.2%) completed the PCS and MCS of the SF36. Eighty-nine carers completed the Hua Oranga. Total Hua Oranga scores and PCS improved significantly for one intervention group but not the other. Total Hua Oranga scores for carers improved significantly for both interventions. Total Hua Oranga score correlated moderately with the PCS (correlation coefficient 0.55, p\\textless0.001). Factor analysis suggested that Hua Oranga measures two and not four factors; one 'physical-mental' and one 'spiritual-family'. CONCLUSION: The Hua Oranga instrument, developed for Maori people with mental illness, showed good responsiveness and adequate psychometric properties in Maori and Pacific people after stroke. Its simplicity, relative brevity, minimal cost and adequate psychometric properties should favour its use in future studies with both Maori and Pacific people. Suggestions are made for refinements to the measure. These should be tested in a new population before Hua Oranga is recommended for general use in a clinical setting.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Taking charge after stroke: promoting self-directed rehabilitation to improve quality of life – a randomized controlled trial.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n Harwood, M.; Weatherall, M.; Talemaitoga, A.; Barber, P A.; Gommans, J.; Taylor, W.; McPherson, K.; and McNaughton, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Clinical Rehabilitation, 26(6): 493–501. June 2012.\n Number: 6\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"TakingPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{harwood_taking_2012-1,\n\ttitle = {Taking charge after stroke: promoting self-directed rehabilitation to improve quality of life – a randomized controlled trial},\n\tvolume = {26},\n\tissn = {0269-2155, 1477-0873},\n\tshorttitle = {Taking charge after stroke},\n\turl = {http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0269215511426017},\n\tdoi = {10.1177/0269215511426017},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {6},\n\turldate = {2020-09-14},\n\tjournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\n\tauthor = {Harwood, Matire and Weatherall, Mark and Talemaitoga, Api and Barber, P Alan and Gommans, John and Taylor, William and McPherson, Kathryn and McNaughton, Harry},\n\tmonth = jun,\n\tyear = {2012},\n\tnote = {Number: 6},\n\tpages = {493--501},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n The association between early arterial oxygenation and mortality in ventilated patients with acute ischaemic stroke.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Young, P.; Beasley, R.; Bailey, M.; Bellomo, R.; Eastwood, G.; Nichol, A.; Pilcher, D.; Yunos, N.; Egi, M.; Hart, G.; Reade, M.; and James Cooper, D\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine, 14: 14–19. 2012.\n \n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{young_association_2012,\n\ttitle = {The association between early arterial oxygenation and mortality in ventilated patients with acute ischaemic stroke},\n\tvolume = {14},\n\tjournal = {Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Young, Paul and Beasley, Richard and Bailey, Michael and Bellomo, Rinaldo and Eastwood, Glenn and Nichol, Alistair and Pilcher, David and Yunos, Nor'azim and Egi, Moritoki and Hart, Graeme and Reade, Michael and James Cooper, D},\n\tyear = {2012},\n\tpages = {14--19},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Taking charge after stroke: promoting self-directed rehabilitation to improve quality of life–a randomized controlled trial.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Harwood, M.; Weatherall, M.; Talemaitoga, A.; Barber, P A.; Gommans, J.; Taylor, W.; McPherson, K.; and McNaughton, H.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Clinical rehabilitation, 26(6): 493–501. 2012.\n Number: 6 Publisher: Sage Publications Sage UK: London, England\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n  \n \n 1 download\n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{harwood_taking_2012-2,\n\ttitle = {Taking charge after stroke: promoting self-directed rehabilitation to improve quality of life–a randomized controlled trial},\n\tvolume = {26},\n\tissn = {0269-2155},\n\tnumber = {6},\n\tjournal = {Clinical rehabilitation},\n\tauthor = {Harwood, Matire and Weatherall, Mark and Talemaitoga, Api and Barber, P Alan and Gommans, John and Taylor, William and McPherson, Kathryn and McNaughton, Harry},\n\tyear = {2012},\n\tnote = {Number: 6\nPublisher: Sage Publications Sage UK: London, England},\n\tpages = {493--501},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2011\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Ethnicity and functional outcome after stroke.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n McNaughton, H.; Feigin, V.; Kerse, N.; Barber, P A.; Weatherall, M.; Bennett, D.; Carter, K.; Hackett, M.; and Anderson, C.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Stroke, 42(4): 960–964. 2011.\n Number: 4 Publisher: Am Heart Assoc\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{mcnaughton_ethnicity_2011,\n\ttitle = {Ethnicity and functional outcome after stroke},\n\tvolume = {42},\n\tissn = {0039-2499},\n\tnumber = {4},\n\tjournal = {Stroke},\n\tauthor = {McNaughton, Harry and Feigin, Valery and Kerse, Ngaire and Barber, P Alan and Weatherall, Mark and Bennett, Derrick and Carter, Kristie and Hackett, Maree and Anderson, Craig},\n\tyear = {2011},\n\tnote = {Number: 4\nPublisher: Am Heart Assoc},\n\tpages = {960--964},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2008\n \n \n (2)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Mobility beyond the clinic: the effect of environment on gait and its measurement in community-ambulant stroke survivors.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Donovan, K.; Lord, S. E; McNaughton, H. K; and Weatherall, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Clinical Rehabilitation, 22(6): 556–563. 2008.\n Number: 6 Publisher: SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{donovan_mobility_2008,\n\ttitle = {Mobility beyond the clinic: the effect of environment on gait and its measurement in community-ambulant stroke survivors},\n\tvolume = {22},\n\tissn = {0269-2155},\n\tnumber = {6},\n\tjournal = {Clinical Rehabilitation},\n\tauthor = {Donovan, Kimberley and Lord, Susan E and McNaughton, Harry K and Weatherall, Mark},\n\tyear = {2008},\n\tnote = {Number: 6\nPublisher: SAGE Publications Sage UK: London, England},\n\tpages = {556--563},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n How feasible is the attainment of community ambulation after stroke? A pilot randomized controlled trial to evaluate community-based physiotherapy in subacute stroke.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Lord, S.; McPherson, K. M; McNaughton, H. K; Rochester, L.; and Weatherall, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Clinical rehabilitation, 22(3): 215–225. 2008.\n Number: 3 Publisher: Sage Publications Sage UK: London, England\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{lord_how_2008,\n\ttitle = {How feasible is the attainment of community ambulation after stroke? {A} pilot randomized controlled trial to evaluate community-based physiotherapy in subacute stroke},\n\tvolume = {22},\n\tissn = {0269-2155},\n\tnumber = {3},\n\tjournal = {Clinical rehabilitation},\n\tauthor = {Lord, Susan and McPherson, Kathryn M and McNaughton, Harry K and Rochester, Lynn and Weatherall, Mark},\n\tyear = {2008},\n\tnote = {Number: 3\nPublisher: Sage Publications Sage UK: London, England},\n\tkeywords = {Stroke},\n\tpages = {215--225},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2005\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n A comparison of stroke rehabilitation practice and outcomes between New Zealand and United States facilities.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n McNaughton, H.; DeJong, G.; Smout, R. J; Melvin, J. L; and Brandstater, M.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 86(12): 115–120. 2005.\n Number: 12 Publisher: Elsevier\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{mcnaughton_comparison_2005,\n\ttitle = {A comparison of stroke rehabilitation practice and outcomes between {New} {Zealand} and {United} {States} facilities},\n\tvolume = {86},\n\tissn = {0003-9993},\n\tnumber = {12},\n\tjournal = {Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation},\n\tauthor = {McNaughton, Harry and DeJong, Gerben and Smout, Randall J and Melvin, John L and Brandstater, Murray},\n\tyear = {2005},\n\tnote = {Number: 12\nPublisher: Elsevier},\n\tpages = {115--120},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2004\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n Consequences of stroke, arthritis and chronic pain—are there important similarities?.\n \n \n \n \n\n\n \n McPherson, K. M; Brander, P.; Taylor, W. J; and McNaughton, H. K\n\n\n \n\n\n\n Disability and Rehabilitation, 26(16): 988–999. August 2004.\n Number: 16\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n \n \"ConsequencesPaper\n  \n \n\n \n \n doi\n  \n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{mcpherson_consequences_2004,\n\ttitle = {Consequences of stroke, arthritis and chronic pain—are there important similarities?},\n\tvolume = {26},\n\tissn = {0963-8288, 1464-5165},\n\turl = {http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09638280410001702414},\n\tdoi = {10.1080/09638280410001702414},\n\tlanguage = {en},\n\tnumber = {16},\n\turldate = {2020-09-14},\n\tjournal = {Disability and Rehabilitation},\n\tauthor = {McPherson, Kathryn M and Brander, Penelope and Taylor, William J and McNaughton, Harry K},\n\tmonth = aug,\n\tyear = {2004},\n\tnote = {Number: 16},\n\tpages = {988--999},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n
\n
\n  \n 2003\n \n \n (1)\n \n \n
\n
\n \n \n
\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n Stroke rehabilitation services in New Zealand.\n \n \n \n\n\n \n Gommans, J.; Barber, A.; McNaughton, H.; Hanger, C.; Bennett, P.; Spriggs, D.; and Baskett, J.\n\n\n \n\n\n\n The New Zealand Medical Journal, 116(1174): U435. May 2003.\n Number: 1174\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n \n\n \n\n \n link\n  \n \n\n bibtex\n \n\n \n  \n \n abstract \n \n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n  \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n\n\n\n
\n
@article{gommans_stroke_2003,\n\ttitle = {Stroke rehabilitation services in {New} {Zealand}},\n\tvolume = {116},\n\tissn = {1175-8716},\n\tabstract = {AIMS: To obtain an overall picture of the organisation of stroke rehabilitation services throughout New Zealand and to see if this is consistent with recommendations in evidence-based guidelines.\nMETHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all hospitals in New Zealand. This included questions about access to organised stroke rehabilitation, guidelines for the management of common problems after stroke, and the use of audit.\nRESULTS: All 48 hospitals surveyed responded, with 37 providing inpatient stroke rehabilitation services. Only one hospital (serving 9\\% of the population) provided a dedicated, inpatient stroke rehabilitation facility. In the other 36 hospitals, stroke rehabilitation was performed in assessment, treatment and rehabilitation units (25 hospitals, 84\\%) or general medical wards (8 hospitals, 7\\%). Only 57\\% of the population had access to hospitals with a nominated lead clinician for stroke rehabilitation services. Thirty per cent were served by hospitals without a multidisciplinary therapy team expert in stroke care. Guidelines for the management of common problems following stroke were used in most hospitals. Only 8 hospitals (28\\%) had audited their stroke rehabilitation services.\nCONCLUSIONS: The organisation and type of rehabilitation services available for people with stroke are not consistent with best practice or accepted guidelines. The development of an organised approach to stroke rehabilitation services in New Zealand must be seen as a priority.},\n\tlanguage = {eng},\n\tnumber = {1174},\n\tjournal = {The New Zealand Medical Journal},\n\tauthor = {Gommans, John and Barber, Alan and McNaughton, Harry and Hanger, Carl and Bennett, Patricia and Spriggs, David and Baskett, Jonathan},\n\tmonth = may,\n\tyear = {2003},\n\tpmid = {12766781},\n\tnote = {Number: 1174},\n\tkeywords = {Age Factors, Continuity of Patient Care, Evidence-Based Medicine, Health Care Surveys, Health Services, Health Services Accessibility, Hospital Units, Humans, Medical Audit, New Zealand, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Rehabilitation, Stroke Rehabilitation, Surveys and Questionnaires},\n\tpages = {U435},\n}\n\n
\n
\n\n\n
\n AIMS: To obtain an overall picture of the organisation of stroke rehabilitation services throughout New Zealand and to see if this is consistent with recommendations in evidence-based guidelines. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all hospitals in New Zealand. This included questions about access to organised stroke rehabilitation, guidelines for the management of common problems after stroke, and the use of audit. RESULTS: All 48 hospitals surveyed responded, with 37 providing inpatient stroke rehabilitation services. Only one hospital (serving 9% of the population) provided a dedicated, inpatient stroke rehabilitation facility. In the other 36 hospitals, stroke rehabilitation was performed in assessment, treatment and rehabilitation units (25 hospitals, 84%) or general medical wards (8 hospitals, 7%). Only 57% of the population had access to hospitals with a nominated lead clinician for stroke rehabilitation services. Thirty per cent were served by hospitals without a multidisciplinary therapy team expert in stroke care. Guidelines for the management of common problems following stroke were used in most hospitals. Only 8 hospitals (28%) had audited their stroke rehabilitation services. CONCLUSIONS: The organisation and type of rehabilitation services available for people with stroke are not consistent with best practice or accepted guidelines. The development of an organised approach to stroke rehabilitation services in New Zealand must be seen as a priority.\n
\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n \n\n \n \n \n \n\n
\n"}; document.write(bibbase_data.data);