↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Occupational therapy for adults with problems in activities of daily living after stroke

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
97 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
460 Mendeley
Title
Occupational therapy for adults with problems in activities of daily living after stroke
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd003585.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lynn A Legg, Sharon R Lewis, Oliver J Schofield-Robinson, Avril Drummond, Peter Langhorne

Abstract

A stroke occurs when the blood supply to part of the brain is cut off. Activities of daily living (ADL) are daily home-based activities that people carry out to maintain health and well-being. ADLs include the ability to: eat and drink unassisted, move, go to the toilet, carry out personal hygiene tasks, dress unassisted, and groom. Stroke causes impairment-related functional limitations that may result in difficulties participating in ADLs independent of supervision, direction, or physical assistance.For adults with stroke, the goal of occupational therapy is to improve their ability to carry out activities of daily living. Strategies used by occupational therapists include assessment, treatment, adaptive techniques, assistive technology, and environmental adaptations. This is an update of the Cochrane review first published in 2006. To assess the effects of occupational therapy interventions on the functional ability of adults with stroke in the domain of activities of daily living, compared with no intervention or standard care/practice. For this update, we searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (last searched 30 January 2017), the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (The Cochrane Library, January 2017), MEDLINE (1946 to 5 January 2017), Embase (1974 to 5 January 2017), CINAHL (1937 to January 2017), PsycINFO (1806 to 2 November 2016), AMED (1985 to 1 November 2016), and Web of Science (1900 to 6 January 2017). We also searched grey literature and clinical trials registers. We identified randomised controlled trials of an occupational therapy intervention (compared with no intervention or standard care/practice) where people with stroke practiced activities of daily living, or where performance in activities of daily living was the focus of the occupational therapy intervention. Two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data for prespecified outcomes. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants who had deteriorated or were dependent in personal activities of daily living and performance in activities of daily living at the end of follow-up. We included nine studies with 994 participants in this update. Occupational therapy targeted towards activities of daily living after stroke increased performance scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 0.31, P = 0.02; 7 studies; 749 participants; low-quality evidence) and reduced the risk of poor outcome (death, deterioration or dependency in personal activities of daily living) (odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.96; P = 0.03; 5 studies; 771 participants; low-quality evidence). We also found that those who received occupational therapy were more independent in extended activities of daily living (OR 0.22 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.37); P = 0.005; 5 studies; 665 participants; low-quality evidence). Occupational therapy did not influence mortality (OR: 1.02 (95% CI 0.65 to 1.61); P = 0.93; 8 studies; 950 participants), or reduce the combined odds of death and institutionalisation (OR 0.89 (95% CI 0.60 to 1.32); P = 0.55; 4 studies; 671 participants), or death and dependency (OR 0.89 (95% CI 0.64 to 1.23); P = 0.47; 4 trials; 659 participants). Occupational therapy did not improve mood or distress scores (OR 0.08 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.26); P = 0.35; 4 studies; 519 participants; low-quality evidence). There were insufficient data to determine the effects of occupational therapy on health-related quality of life. We found no studies of consenting carers prior to study participation and therefore there were no carer-related outcomes in our review. There were insufficient data to determine participants' and carers' satisfaction with services.Using GRADE, the quality of evidence was low. The major limitation was the number of studies at unclear risk of selection bias and an inevitable high risk of performance and detection bias, as both participants and occupational therapists could not be blinded to the intervention. In addition, there was a sparseness of data for our outcomes of interest and we downgraded the quality of our evidence for these reasons. We found low-quality evidence that occupational therapy targeted towards activities of daily living after stroke can improve performance in activities of daily living and reduce the risk of deterioration in these abilities. Because the included studies had methodological flaws, this research does not provide a reliable indication of the likely effect of occupational therapy for adults with stroke.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 97 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 460 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 460 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 79 17%
Student > Master 73 16%
Researcher 34 7%
Student > Ph. D. Student 32 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 19 4%
Other 65 14%
Unknown 158 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 104 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 78 17%
Social Sciences 26 6%
Psychology 21 5%
Neuroscience 16 3%
Other 40 9%
Unknown 175 38%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 74. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 May 2022.
All research outputs
#495,007
of 22,990,068 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#939
of 12,343 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#11,739
of 315,216 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#33
of 272 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,990,068 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,343 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 30.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 315,216 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 272 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.