Early Mobilization after Stroke: Changes in Clinical Opinion Despite an Unchanging Evidence Base

Abstract

Background: We sought to determine whether Australasian health professionals' opinions regarding early mobilization after stroke changed between 2008 and 2014, when a large international trial of early mobilization (A Very Early Rehabilitation Trial, AVERT) was underway.

Methods: Attendees at the two major Australasian stroke conferences in 2008 and 2014 were surveyed. Participants rated their agreement with statements about the risks and benefits of commencing mobilization within 24 hours of hemorrhagic and ischemic stroke using a 5-point Likert scale. Participants in 2014 were asked about their awareness of AVERT. Logistic regressions were performed to determine whether the time point (2008 versus 2014) or awareness of AVERT influenced opinions about early mobilization.

Results: Surveys were completed by 443 health professionals (2008: N = 202; 2014: N = 241). Most respondents in 2014 reported that early mobilization was beneficial and not harmful to people with ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke. Opinions regarding mobilization after ischemic stroke did not change significantly between 2008 and 2014. In 2014, a significantly greater proportion of respondents believed that early mobilization after hemorrhagic stroke was helpful (2008: n = 98 of 202 [49%] versus 2014: n = 170 of 241 [71%], P < .01). Awareness of AVERT was significantly associated with the opinion that early mobilization was beneficial and not harmful to patients with stroke (P < .05).

Conclusions: Australasian health professionals' opinions of early mobilization after hemorrhagic stroke changed between 2008 and 2014, prior to reporting of the AVERT trial. Our results suggest that awareness of an ongoing research trial can lead to changes in opinions before the efficacy of the experimental intervention is known.

Keywords: Stroke; clinical opinion; early mobilization; questionnaire.