A scoping review of community-based stroke rehabilitation in low-resource settings.

Abstract

Background: There is a need for accessible and affordable rehabilitation services in low-resource settings (low- and middle-income countries) to support the increasing number of survivors of stroke.

Aims: To synthesize existing literature on the delivery of community-based stroke rehabilitation programs in low-resource settings.

Summary of review: We followed the PRISMA Scoping Review guidelines. Seven databases (including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL) were searched to identify relevant articles published between January 2012 and December 2024. Studies were considered if they included physical rehabilitation strategies as part of a community-based rehabilitation program for individuals with stroke aged ⩾18 years in low-resource settings. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened by multiple authors for inclusion. A predefined template that covered physical rehabilitation strategies, setting, providers, frequency, session duration, and program duration was used for data extraction. Results were synthesized narratively. After screening 2892 abstracts, 25 studies were included from 11 countries throughout Asia, Africa, and South America. Most studies were carried out in middle-income countries, with only one study taking place in a low-income country (Uganda). Over half of the studies (n = 16) were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The physical rehabilitation programs were primarily delivered at home, in person, by a single healthcare professional, typically a physiotherapist or nurse. Session duration was not specified for more than half of the studies. Where reported, sessions were 1 h or less, usually occurring at least once weekly over a 2-to-3-month period. Over 36 different outcome measures were identified, with the Barthel Index being the most common (48%). Overall, 10 RCTs showed a statistically significant difference between intervention and control groups, while five RCTs had no significant difference at the post-intervention outcome evaluation. None of the included publications reported costs or cost-effectiveness data.

Conclusion: Community-based rehabilitation programs in low-resource settings differ in their physical rehabilitation strategies and characteristics. While the evidence base in this field is growing, the lack of cost-effectiveness evaluations means there is limited guidance to inform investment in, or optimization of, these multi-component, community-based programs.