Key result
SCARF residential rehab achieves ~88% retention in cardiac arrest survivors but misses recruitment and completion targets.
Why the study?
This study evaluated the feasibility and potential effect of SCARF, a multidisciplinary residential rehabilitation intervention targeting fatigue and the secondary psychological and physical consequences of cardiac arrest.
Does the SCARF multidisciplinary residential rehabilitation intervention improve fatigue and psychological/physical consequences in survivors of cardiac arrest?
Does the SCARF multidisciplinary residential rehabilitation intervention improve fatigue and psychological/physical consequences in survivors of cardiac arrest?
A multidisciplinary residential rehabilitation intervention for cardiac arrest survivors is feasible and shows potential to improve fatigue and psychological outcomes, paving the way for a future randomized controlled trial.
Supports feasibility for RCT but warrants no practice change; leaves open SCARF efficacy for fatigue and outcomes post-arrest.
AIMS: This study investigated the feasibility and potential effect of SCARF (Survivors of Cardiac ARest focused on Fatigue) a multidisciplinary residential rehabilitation intervention focused on fatigue and the secondary psychological and physical consequences of cardiac arrest (CA). METHODS: This was a prospective one-armed feasibility study. Six progression criteria were identified related to the feasibility of the intervention and viability of a future effect study in terms of: participant recruitment (1), participant retention (2,3,4), and completeness of outcomes (5,6). Data on participant/clinician satisfaction with the intervention was also collected along with self-reported outcomes: fatigue, quality of life, anxiety, depression, function and disability, and physical activity (at baseline, 12 weeks and 6 months) and physical capacity (baseline and 12 weeks). RESULTS: Four progression criteria were met including retention (87.5%) and completion of baseline outcomes (97.5%). Two criteria were not met: recruitment rate was 2.9 participants per month (estimated rate needed 6.1) and completion of final outcomes was 65% (estimated proportion needed 75%). Participant/clinician satisfaction with the intervention was high. Three months after the SCARF intervention small to moderate effect size changes of r = 0.18-0.46 were found for self-reported fatigue, quality of life, anxiety, depression, function and disability and for two of the physical capacity tests (d = 0.46-0.52). CONCLUSION: SCARF was found to be a feasible intervention with high participant/clinician satisfaction, high participant retention and the possible potential to improve self-reported and physical capacity outcomes. Procedures for study recruitment and collection of final outcomes should be modified before a fully powered randomised controlled trial is conducted.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Joshi et al. (2022) studied cardiac arrest. SCARF (Survivors of Cardiac ARest focused on Fatigue) residential rehabilitation was evaluated on Feasibility progression criteria (participant recruitment, retention, and completeness of outcomes). The SCARF residential rehabilitation intervention for cardiac arrest survivors was feasible with 87.5% retention, though recruitment and final outcome completion rates fell short of targets.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: