Skip to content

A Rehabilitation Therapy for Post-stroke Fatigue

A Feasibility Study of a Brief Psychological Intervention for Post-stroke Fatigue

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 1Phase 2
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02131532
Enrollment
12
Registered
2014-05-06
Start date
2014-07-31
Completion date
2015-04-30
Last updated
2017-09-20

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Stroke

Keywords

Post-stroke fatigue, Psychological intervention, Feasibility

Brief summary

Stroke is a leading cause of adult disability in the community. Fatigue affects about a third of stroke survivors. It results in difficulty taking part in everyday activities, and increases risk of hospitalization and death after stroke. Despite of its high prevalence and distressing consequences, there is no effective treatment. Psychological interventions have improved fatigue in patients with other conditions such as multiple sclerosis. These interventions primarily target patients' beliefs about overcoming fatigue and their physical activities in daily life. Also studies indicated that post-stroke fatigue is associated with mood. Based on this knowledge, the investigator has designed a brief psychological intervention for post-stroke fatigue. The current study is a feasibility study to test the adequacy of intervention manuals and the feasibility of trial processes. This study will need 12 stroke survivors who have post-stroke fatigue and are over three months but within two years after their stroke. Stroke survivors with severe depression or having insufficient capability in cognition or communication will not be included. The investigator will check their eligibility by questionnaires and interviews and then invite eligible people to take part in the study. This intervention will be delivered by a therapist (a clinical psychologist) to each participant through six face-to-face therapy sessions. Each session will be about one hour and be two weeks' apart. During the sessions, participants will discuss with the therapist their fatigue problems, and, with the support from the therapist, work out ways to solve their problems. One month after the last face-to-face session, each participant will receive a feedback session by telephone from the therapist. Each participant will be followed up to three months after the last face-to-face session. After all participants complete their feedback sessions, the investigator will invite them to a group meeting to share their experiences of taking part in this trial and makes suggestions as how their experiences of this intervention, and also of this trial, could be improved.

Detailed description

This is a feasibility study to test a brief psychological intervention for post-stroke fatigue. 12 stroke survivors with post-stroke fatigue will be recruited for this study. This intervention has been adapted from similar interventions that have improved fatigue in other conditions, such as multiple sclerosis, cancer and chronic fatigue syndrome. Like in other conditions, fatigue in stroke survivors is associated with low mood, people's beliefs about overcoming fatigue, and reduced physical activity. This intervention will target patients' mood, their beliefs about their ability to overcome fatigue, and the scheduling of daily activities, with an aim to increase physical activities in daily life and finally reduce the level of fatigue. Following the relevant guideline of the United Kingdom (UK) Medical Research Council, the investigators will perform a sequence of trials to test the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of this intervention. Current study is an initial stage to test the feasibility of the intervention, i.e. whether this brief psychological intervention could be adequately delivered to people with post-stroke fatigue on an individual basis. To standardize the therapeutic components of this psychological intervention, this intervention will be delivered by a clinical psychologist in the current study. In subsequent trials, the intervention will then be adapted to be delivered by stroke nurses, which is a more practical situation within the National Health Service of the United Kingdom. Check for eligibility and consent for participation: the investigator will send mails to stroke survivors who had a stroke between the past three to 24 months to invite them to take part in a survey for post-stroke fatigue and depression. For those who have post-stroke fatigue and do not have severe depression, they will be invited to a face-to-face meeting with the investigator. At this meeting, the investigator will further check the eligibility of each potential participant and answer his/her questions about this study. If the potential participant is willing to take part in the trial, him/her will be asked to sign a consent form for participation. Baseline assessment of clinical outcomes: after signing the consent, the participant will be asked to complete four questionnaires for baseline assessment: 1. Fatigue Assessment Scale 2. Case definition of post-stroke fatigue 3. Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living 4. Stroke Impact Scale Therapy sessions: each participant will be attending six face-to-face sessions over a period of eleven weeks in the hospital. Each session will last for about one hour, where the participant will meet a therapist (a clinical psychologist) of this intervention. With the support from the therapist, the participant will work through an intervention manual to learn skills to overcome their problems related to fatigue, especially for physical activity, mood and sleep. There will be intervals of two weeks between sessions. During the intervals, the participant will be asked to keep a diary to record their daily activities and sleep, to put into action things they have agreed with the therapist (including doing more activity), or to read sections of the intervention manual. Post-treatment assessment of clinical outcomes: participants will three assessments of clinical outcomes, i.e. immediately after completing all six treatment sessions, one month after treatment, and three-month after treatment. 1. Fatigue (Fatigue Assessment Scale and a case definition of post-stroke fatigue) 2. Depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9) 3. Independence in daily life (Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living) 4. Health-related quality of life (Stroke Impact Scale) An interim analysis will be performed after one-month assessment and the final analysis will be performed after the three-month assessment. Before- and after- treatment assessments will show whether the intervention is beneficial for the above aspects and whether these benefits could be maintained. The investigator will then write to each participant to inform them of the individual results of both analyses. Feedback session: at the time of one-month assessment, the participant will be asked to fill a feedback form for their experience of this intervention and the trial. The investigator will analyze the results of this feedback form as well as the results of one-month assessment, and then inform both the participant and the therapist of the individual results. Then the therapist will carry out a feedback session with each participant by telephone (about one hour). During this session, they will discuss the results of assessments and any difficulties that the participant may have experienced in the past month. They will also agree a plan to make further improvement. Fatigue is a chronic symptom which would require a long term for recovery. Thus this intervention with six treatment sessions is expected to be an intensive initial program for the recovery of post-stroke fatigue, from which participants will learn skills to overcome fatigue-related problems that they can use in daily life. Thus the therapist will encourage participants to continue using these skills in their daily life even after completing the therapy sessions. Feedback meeting: after all participants have completed their feedback sessions, the investigator will invite them to a feedback meeting. This meeting will be facilitated by the Chief Investigator of this study. At this meeting, participants will share their experience in taking part in this trial, discuss any difficulties they have experienced, and make suggestions to improve this intervention and the trial processes.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALA brief psychological intervention

This intervention is based on the principle of cognitive-behavioral therapy

Sponsors

University of Edinburgh
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* Had a clinical diagnosis of stroke in the past three to 24 months (including minor stroke) * Have post-stroke fatigue * Over 18 years old * Live in the Lothian area, Scotland

Exclusion criteria

* Have severe depression (with a total score of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 of 15 or more) * Have severe cognitive deficits * Have severe aphasia * Have significant difficulty in verbal communication * Medically unstable or have another unfavorable condition that could impact results (e.g. substance abuse) * Being in the nursing home * Currently in another research study that might affect fatigue or add significant burden to participants, e.g. studies have outcome measures for fatigue or involve physical training

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
Feasibility of Recruitment Process3 months after the end of treatmentThe numbers of stroke patients involved at each stage of recruitment were reported under this outcome.
Attendance of Treatment Sessions3 months after the end of treatmentNumber of participants who completed all treatment sessions.
Feasibility of Telephone-delivered Booster Sessions3 months after the end of treatmentNumbers of participants who attended the booster session as planned and those who rearranged the session
Feasibility of Follow-up Assessment at Three Months After the End of Treatment3 months after the end of treatmentNumbers of participants who completed and returned the questionnaires on time (as required) and of those who delayed the completion.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
SIS - Physical Strength3 months after the end of treatmentThe physical strength subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0, of which the score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes.
SIS - Memory and Thinking3 months after the end of treatmentThe memory and thinking subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0, of which the score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes.
SIS - Emotion3 months after the end of treatmentThe emotion subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0, of which the score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes.
SIS - Communication3 months after the end of treatmentThe communication subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0, of which the score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes.
Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS)3 months after the end of treatmentThis is the primary clinical outcome for this intervention (but clinical outcomes are all secondary outcomes for this pilot feasibility study). The total FAS score ranges from 10 to 50, with higher scores indicating worse outcomes of fatigue severity.
SIS - Mobility3 months after the end of treatmentThe mobility subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0, of which the score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes.
SIS - Hand Function3 months after the end of treatmentThe hand function subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0, of which the score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes.
SIS - Social Activity3 months after the end of treatmentThe social activity subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0, of which the score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes.
SIS - Daily Activities3 months after the end of treatmentThe daily activities subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0, of which the score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes.
Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)3 months after the end of treatmentThe total PHQ-9 score ranges from 0 to 27, with higher scores indicating worse outcomes of depressive symptoms.
Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL)3 months after the end of treatmentThe total NEADL score ranges from 0 to 22, with higher scores indicating better outcomes of independence.
Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) - General Rating of Recovery3 months after the end of treatmentThe general rating scale on the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0, of which the score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes of recovery.

Countries

United Kingdom

Participant flow

Recruitment details

The recruitment was started in July 2014 and completed in October 2014. Participants were recruited through three approaches, including patients discharged from the Stroke Ward, patients visiting the Stroke Clinic, and those visited by the stroke nurses in the community.

Participants by arm

ArmCount
Intervention Group
Baseline characteristics of eight participants who completed all treatment sessions
8
Total8

Withdrawals & dropouts

PeriodReasonFG000
Overall StudyOther health conditions2
Overall StudyPhysician Decision1
Overall StudyWithdrawal by Subject1

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicIntervention Group
Age, Continuous62.0 years
STANDARD_DEVIATION 14.7
Case definition of post-stroke fatigue
Fulfilling case definition
5 participants
Case definition of post-stroke fatigue
Not fulfilling case definition
3 participants
Fatigue Assessment Scale26.5 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 8
Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living20.8 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 0.9
Patient Health Questionnaire-97.6 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 4.3
Region of Enrollment
United Kingdom
8 participants
Sex: Female, Male
Female
1 Participants
Sex: Female, Male
Male
7 Participants
Stroke Impact Scale - Communication80.36 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 23.3
Stroke Impact Scale - Daily Activities93.44 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 6.54
Stroke Impact Scale - Emotion65.97 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 26.13
Stroke Impact Scale - General rating of recovery74.8 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 16.7
Stroke Impact Scale - Hand Function93.75 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.54
Stroke Impact Scale - Memory and Thinking75.45 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 21.29
Stroke Impact Scale - Mobility87.50 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 15.14
Stroke Impact Scale - Physical Strength89.06 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 9.88
Stroke Impact Scale - Social Activity67.85 units on a scale
STANDARD_DEVIATION 24.55

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
affected / at risk
deaths
Total, all-cause mortality
— / —
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 12
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 12

Outcome results

Primary

Attendance of Treatment Sessions

Number of participants who completed all treatment sessions.

Time frame: 3 months after the end of treatment

ArmMeasureValue (NUMBER)
Intervention GroupAttendance of Treatment Sessions8 participants
Primary

Feasibility of Follow-up Assessment at Three Months After the End of Treatment

Numbers of participants who completed and returned the questionnaires on time (as required) and of those who delayed the completion.

Time frame: 3 months after the end of treatment

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Intervention GroupFeasibility of Follow-up Assessment at Three Months After the End of TreatmentOn time6 participants
Intervention GroupFeasibility of Follow-up Assessment at Three Months After the End of TreatmentDelayed2 participants
Primary

Feasibility of Recruitment Process

The numbers of stroke patients involved at each stage of recruitment were reported under this outcome.

Time frame: 3 months after the end of treatment

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Intervention GroupFeasibility of Recruitment ProcessInitially approached patients120 participants
Intervention GroupFeasibility of Recruitment ProcessResponding patients49 participants
Intervention GroupFeasibility of Recruitment ProcessEligible patients20 participants
Intervention GroupFeasibility of Recruitment ProcessConsented patients12 participants
Primary

Feasibility of Telephone-delivered Booster Sessions

Numbers of participants who attended the booster session as planned and those who rearranged the session

Time frame: 3 months after the end of treatment

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Intervention GroupFeasibility of Telephone-delivered Booster SessionsAttended as planned1 participants
Intervention GroupFeasibility of Telephone-delivered Booster SessionsRearranged7 participants
Secondary

Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS)

This is the primary clinical outcome for this intervention (but clinical outcomes are all secondary outcomes for this pilot feasibility study). The total FAS score ranges from 10 to 50, with higher scores indicating worse outcomes of fatigue severity.

Time frame: 3 months after the end of treatment

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Intervention GroupFatigue Assessment Scale (FAS)17.25 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.56
Comparison: Null hypothesis: there was no difference in fatigue scores between baseline and three-month assessmentsp-value: 0.0395% CI: [1.398, 17.102]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Nottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL)

The total NEADL score ranges from 0 to 22, with higher scores indicating better outcomes of independence.

Time frame: 3 months after the end of treatment

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Intervention GroupNottingham Extended Activities of Daily Living (NEADL)21.00 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 1.07
Comparison: Null hypothesis: there was no difference in independence scores between baseline and three-month assessmentsp-value: 0.4595% CI: [-0.991, 0.491]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)

The total PHQ-9 score ranges from 0 to 27, with higher scores indicating worse outcomes of depressive symptoms.

Time frame: 3 months after the end of treatment

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Intervention GroupPatient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9)5.00 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 6.32
Comparison: Null hypothesis: there was no difference in depression scores between baseline and three-month assessmentsp-value: 0.195% CI: [-0.687, 5.937]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

SIS - Communication

The communication subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0, of which the score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes.

Time frame: 3 months after the end of treatment

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Intervention GroupSIS - Communication87.50 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 17.91
Comparison: Null hypothesis: there was no difference in communication scores between baseline and three-month assessmentsp-value: 0.195% CI: [-15.883, 1.598]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

SIS - Daily Activities

The daily activities subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0, of which the score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes.

Time frame: 3 months after the end of treatment

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Intervention GroupSIS - Daily Activities95.94 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 5.33
Comparison: Null hypothesis: there was no difference in daily activities scores between baseline and three-month assessmentsp-value: 0.0995% CI: [-5.455, 0.455]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

SIS - Emotion

The emotion subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0, of which the score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes.

Time frame: 3 months after the end of treatment

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Intervention GroupSIS - Emotion84.38 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 18.84
Comparison: Null hypothesis: there was no difference in emotion scores between baseline and three-month assessmentsp-value: 0.00995% CI: [-30.624, -6.183]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

SIS - Hand Function

The hand function subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0, of which the score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes.

Time frame: 3 months after the end of treatment

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Intervention GroupSIS - Hand Function95.63 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 8.63
Comparison: Null hypothesis: there was no difference in hand function scores between baseline and three-month assessmentsp-value: 0.5895% CI: [-9.594, 5.844]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

SIS - Memory and Thinking

The memory and thinking subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0, of which the score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes.

Time frame: 3 months after the end of treatment

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Intervention GroupSIS - Memory and Thinking87.05 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 18
Comparison: Null hypothesis: there was no difference in memory and thinking scores between baseline and three-month assessmentsp-value: 0.00995% CI: [-7.729, 3.519]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

SIS - Mobility

The mobility subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0, of which the score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes.

Time frame: 3 months after the end of treatment

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Intervention GroupSIS - Mobility91.32 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 13.96
Comparison: Null hypothesis: there was no difference in mobility scores between baseline and three-month assessmentsp-value: 0.0395% CI: [-7.091, -0.551]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

SIS - Physical Strength

The physical strength subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0, of which the score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes.

Time frame: 3 months after the end of treatment

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Intervention GroupSIS - Physical Strength89.84 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 12.47
Comparison: Null hypothesis: there was no difference in physical strength scores between baseline and three-month assessmentsp-value: 0.8995% CI: [-14.01, 12.448]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

SIS - Social Activity

The social activity subscale of the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0, of which the score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes.

Time frame: 3 months after the end of treatment

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Intervention GroupSIS - Social Activity82.42 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 19.9
Comparison: Null hypothesis: there was no difference in social activity scores between baseline and three-month assessmentsp-value: 0.00695% CI: [-23.304, -5.847]t-test, 2 sided
Secondary

Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) - General Rating of Recovery

The general rating scale on the Stroke Impact Scale 3.0, of which the score ranges from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better outcomes of recovery.

Time frame: 3 months after the end of treatment

ArmMeasureValue (MEAN)Dispersion
Intervention GroupStroke Impact Scale (SIS) - General Rating of Recovery88.63 units on a scaleStandard Deviation 15.16
Comparison: Null hypothesis: there was no difference in scores of general rating of recovery between baseline and three-month assessmentsp-value: 0.0395% CI: [-25.769, -1.981]t-test, 2 sided

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026