MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4415307207 · doi:10.1101/2025.10.13.25337718

Impact of a high-dose intensive-targeted motor rehabilitation programme integrating advanced technology for adults with central neurological conditions (INTeRAcT): protocol for a single-blind randomised controlled trial with a clinical, health economic and process evaluation

2025· preprint· W4415307207 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marjan Coremans, Ingue Allewijn, Filiep Bataillie, Laure De Bruyn, Maaike Fobelets, F. Jacobs, Steven Janssens, Laura Pattyn, Koen Putman, Agaat Schiltz, Lisa Tedesco Triccas, Floris Van Thienen, Geert Verheyden

Notice bibliographique

RevuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Langue
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesInstitut National d'assurance Maladie-InvaliditéVlaamse regeringKU LeuvenFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Mots-clésRehabilitationRandomized controlled trialQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical trialStroke (engine)Functional Independence MeasureSpinal cord injury

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Introduction Chronic stroke and spinal cord injury are both associated with persistent motor impairments, resulting in reduced independence in daily life and lower quality of life. Although rehabilitation is essential to address these challenges, the amount of therapy provided during the chronic phase remains limited, while the long-term cost of care is substantial. Here, we describe the INTeRAcT protocol: a randomised controlled trial with a clinical, health economic and process evaluation, designed to assess the effectiveness of a high-dose, intensive-targeted and personalised rehabilitation programme. Methods and analysis In this single-blind randomised controlled trial, we aim to recruit 100 adults in the chronic phase after stroke or spinal cord injury. Participants will be randomised to either the INTeRAcT intervention group (n=50) or a control group receiving usual care (n=50). The intervention group will receive 90 hours of personalised motor rehabilitation over three weeks, including upper and lower limb therapy, with and without advanced technology, cardiovascular fitness training, and self-management education. After the intervention, both groups return to usual care and are followed up for nine months. Clinical outcomes will be assessed by a blinded assessor at baseline (T0), post-intervention (T1), and at nine-month follow-up (T2), with additional data collected throughout for the health economic and process evaluations. The primary clinical outcome is independence in daily life, assessed using the Functional Independence Measure for participants with stroke, and the Spinal Cord Independence Measure for those with spinal cord injury. Secondary clinical outcomes include the EuroQol 5D-5L, Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, Goal Attainment Scaling, and the Fatigue Severity Scale. Additional stroke-specific secondary outcomes are the Action Research Arm Test, Fugl-Meyer Assessment, Functional Ambulation Categories, the 6 Minute Walk Test, 10 Meter Walk Test, and the Stroke Self-Efficacy Questionnaire. A multivariate linear model will be used to compare clinical changes between the two groups. Health economic data will be collected using diaries and questionnaires, capturing direct and indirect costs such as healthcare use, medication, transport, productivity loss, and informal care. Effects will be measured via the EQ-5D-5L and expressed in Quality-Adjusted Life Years. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed through a trial-based cost-utility analysis over a nine-month horizon and a Markov model over a lifetime horizon, complemented by scenario analyses and a budget-impact analysis. The process evaluation, guided by the UK Medical Research Council framework, adopts a mixed-methods approach combining quantitative and qualitative data from structured diaries, semi-structured interviews, and observations. Quantitative data will be presented descriptively, while qualitative data will be examined using both content and thematic analysis. Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained from the central and local ethics committees on 10 July 2023. The currently approved protocol is version 5, dated 15 March 2024. All participants provide written informed consent prior to enrolment. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and presentations at national and international conferences, as well as at various stakeholder events. Trial registration number NCT05970367 (31 July 2023) ARTICLE SUMMARY Strengths and limitations of this study This protocol combines clinical, process, and health economic evaluations to comprehensively assess a complex, high-dose and individually tailored motor rehabilitation intervention, addressing key evidence gaps regarding effectiveness, implementation, contextual factors and cost-effectiveness in chronic stroke and spinal cord injury care. Clinical outcome assessments will be conducted by a blinded assessor, reducing the risk of measurement bias. The rehabilitation programme combines a standardised structure with individual goal-setting, developed in collaboration with clinical practice and grounded in evidence-based principles, enhancing feasibility and clinical applicability. Although the trial is conducted in a single clinical centre, the inclusion of both stroke and spinal cord injury populations enhances generalisability across neurological conditions, while the process evaluation will identify contextual factors to support future implementation in other settings.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,043
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,043
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Essai randomisé · Signal consensuel: Essai randomisé
GenreSignal candidat: Protocole · Signal consensuel: Protocole
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,043
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,229

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0430,043
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0080,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0160,009
Bibliométrie0,0040,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0030,006
Communication savante0,0050,004
Science ouverte0,0050,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0100,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0400,008

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,042
Tête enseignante GPT0,421
Écart entre enseignants0,379 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeEssai randomisé
Domainenon disponible
GenreProtocole

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuemedRxiv→Même sujetStroke Rehabilitation and Recovery→Travaux en français237 207→