METHODS: A quasi-experimental multiple time series was conducted starting in September 2017 and ending in June 2018. 140 nurses were sampled using the proportionate stratified random sampling technique; 132 were completed the study 67 the intervention group, while 65 in the control group.
RESULTS: There were no significant differences in nurses' job performance or commitment between the 2 groups (control and intervention). A repeated measure MANOVA test for both groups revealed that the interaction between group and time was statistically significant (F (4, 127) = 144.841; P = .001; Wilk's Λ = 0.180; η2 = .820), indicating that groups had a significantly different pattern of job performance and commitment over time. A repeated test The MANCOVA test for both groups across time revealed significant differences in nurses' job performance and nurses' commitment at a less than 0.05 significance level (F (2127) = 320.724; P = .001; Wilk's Λ = 0.165; η2 = 0.835), and the overall effect of time was significant for all dependent variables (F (4125) = 36.879; P = .001; Wilk's Λ = 0.459; η2 = 0.541).
CONCLUSION: The educational intervention was effective in improving nursing job performance among the study sample. The improved commitment of respondents in the intervention group was attributed to the improvement in job performance.
METHODS: This is an assessor-blinded randomized control trial comparing 2 types of intervention which are HBT (experimental group) and usual practice (UP) (control group). Based on sample size calculation using GPower, a total number of 42 participants will be recruited and allocated into either the HBT or the UP group. Participants in HBT group will receive a set of structured exercise therapy consisting of progressive strengthening, balance and task-related exercises. While participants in UP group will receive a usual "intervention" practised by rehabilitation professional prior to discharging stroke patients from their care. Both groups are advised to perform the given interventions for 3 times per week for 12 weeks under the supervision of their caregiver. Outcomes of interventions will be measured using timed up and go test (for mobility), ten-meter walk test (for gait speed), stroke self-efficacy questionnaire (for self-efficacy) and hospital anxiety and depression scale (for anxiety level). All data will be analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.
DISCUSSION: This study will provide the information on the effectiveness of HBT in comparison to UP among stroke population who are discharged from rehabilitation. Findings from the study will enable rehabilitation professionals to design effective discharge care plan for stroke survivors in combating functional decline when no longer receiving hospital-based therapy.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12619001182189 (last updated 22/11/2019).
METHODS: This is an assessor-blinded randomized control trial comparing 2 types of intervention which are game-based circuit exercise (experimental group) and conventional circuit exercise (control group). Based on sample size calculation using GPower, a total number of 82 participants will be recruited and allocated into either the experimental or the control group. Participants in the experimental group will receive a set of structured game-based exercise therapy which has the components of resistance, dynamic balance and aerobic exercises. While participants in the control group will receive a conventional circuit exercise as usually conducted by physiotherapists consisting of 6 exercise stations; cycling, repeated sit to stand, upper limb exercise, lower limb exercise, stepping up/down and walking over obstacles. Both groups will perform the given interventions for 2 times per week for 12 weeks under the supervision of 2 physiotherapists. Outcomes of the interventions will be measured using 30-second chair rise test (for lower limb strength), Dynamic Gait Index (for postural stability), 6-minute walk test (aerobic capacity), Intrinsic Motivation Inventory questionnaire (for motivation level), stroke self-efficacy questionnaire (for self-efficacy) and Short Form-36 quality of life questionnaire (for quality of life). All data will be analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics.
DISCUSSION: This study will provide the information regarding the effectiveness of including game elements into circuit exercise training. Findings from this study will enable physiotherapists to design more innovative exercise therapy sessions to promote neuroplasticity and enhance functionality and quality of life among stroke survivors under their care.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN 12621001489886 (last updated 1/11/2021).
DATA SOURCE: Six major databases were searched from inception till June 2015: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsychInfo, SPORTDiscus, and Cochrane Center Register of Controlled Trials.
STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Two reviewers independently rated methodological quality using the modified Downs and Black Scale and extracted and synthesized key findings (i.e., participant characteristics, study design, physical function and fitness outcomes, and adverse events).
RESULTS: Eight of 276 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which none showed high research quality. Four studies assessed physical function outcomes and 4 studies evaluated aerobic fitness as outcome measures. Significant improvements on these 2 outcomes were generally found. Other physical or fitness outcomes including body composition, muscular strength, and balance were rarely reported.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: There is weak evidence supporting aquatic exercise training to improve physical function and aerobic fitness among adults with spinal cord injury. Suggestions for future research include reporting details of exercise interventions, evaluating other physical or fitness outcomes, and improving methodological quality.
METHOD AND ANALYSIS: A single center, prospective, randomized, parallel design, single-blind trial will be conducted in the Malaysian state of Kelantan among postdialysis euvolemic hypertensive patients that are on regular dialysis at least 3 times a week. The primary outcome of the trial will be to note the effectiveness of losartan (RAAS inhibitor) in reducing systolic BP 140 mm Hg will be randomized using Covariate Adaptive Randomization to standard or treatment arm. Participants in the treatment arm will be given 50 mg of losartan once daily except on dialysis days, whereas the standard arm patients will be prescribed non-RAAS antihypertensive agents. The study participants will be followed for a period of 12 months. A Wilcoxon statistical test will be performed to note the difference in BP from baseline up to 12 months using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 20.
ETHICAL AND TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study protocols are approved from the Ethical and Research Committee of the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM/JEPeM/15050173). The trial is registered under the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry (ACTRN12615001322527). The trial was registered on 2/12/2015 and the 1st patient was enrolled on 10/12/2015. The trial was formally initiated on 16/02/2016.
CONCLUSION: Management of HTN among HD patients requires understanding the primary cause of HTN and treating accordingly. The current trial is an attempt to reduce BP among postdialysis euvolemic but hypertensive patients.