What do stroke survivors' value about participating in research and what are the most important research problems related to stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA)? A survey

Financial Cost Analysis Associated with a Locomotor Exercise Randomized Controlled Trial in Chronic Stroke

Background

Post-stroke recovery trials pose distinct recruitment and retention challenges, and understanding the financial requirements of conducting randomized controlled trials is crucial to ensure sufficient resources for successful study execution. The purpose of this analysis was to quantify the costs at a single site with a large catchment area of the Moderate-Intensity Exercise Versus High-Intensity Interval Training to Recover Walking Post-Stroke, HIT Stroke Trial.

Methods

To determine cost, study expense reports were gathered and divided into four categories: oversight, recruitment, retention, and outcome assessments. Categories were then further divided into chronological order for initial contact and prescreening, consenting, initial screening, and baseline testing. The 12-week intervention was divided into 4-week blocks: intervention block 1, post 4-week outcome testing, intervention block 2, post 8-week outcome testing, intervention block 3, and post 12-week outcome testing.

Results

Total direct cost for site execution was $539,768 with cost per participant approximated as $35,984. Oversight costs accounted for 65.8% of the budget at $355,661. To achieve goals related to inclusive participant recruitment ($21,923) and retention ($28,009), our site costs totaled $49,932. Direct study-related costs included screening assessments ($5,905), baseline assessments ($15,028), intervention ($76,952), and outcome assessments ($36,288).

Conclusion

Clinical trials on walking rehabilitation and exercise, especially those involving multiple assessment visits, require intensive oversight. This cost analysis provides important and critical insight into the expenses required to successfully execute an exercise-based walking rehabilitation trial in the United States.

How should we measure physical activity after stroke? An international consensus

BACKGROUND

Physical activity is important for secondary stroke prevention. Currently, there is inconsistency of outcomes and tools used to measure physical activity following stroke.

AIM

To establish internationally agreed recommendations to enable consistent measurement of post-stroke physical activity.

METHODS

Stroke survivors and carers were surveyed online once regarding what is important in physical activity measurement. Three survey rounds with expert stroke researchers and clinicians were conducted using Keeney's Value-Focused Thinking Methodology. Survey 1 identified physical activity tools, outcomes, and measurement considerations which were ranked in Survey 2. Consensus recommendations on tools were then formulated by the consensus group based on survey responses. In Survey 3, participants reviewed ranked results and evidence gathered to determine their support for consensus recommendations.

RESULTS

Twenty-five stroke survivors, 5 carers, 18 researchers, and 17 clinicians from 16 countries participated. Time in moderate-vigorous physical activity and step count were identified as the most important outcomes to measure. Key measurement considerations included the ability to measure across frequency, intensity, duration domains in real-world settings; user-friendliness, comfort, and ability to detect changes. Consensus recommendations included using the Actigraph, Actical, and Activ8 devices for physical activity intensity; ActivPAL for duration and Step Activity Monitor for frequency; and the IPAQ and PASE questionnaires. Survey 3 indicated 100% support for device and 96% for questionnaire recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

These consensus recommendations can guide selection of physical activity measurement tools and outcomes. Tool selection will depend on measurement purpose, user-knowledge, and resources. Comprehensive measurement requires the use of devices and questionnaires.