Assessment of Process Evaluations of Complex Stroke Rehabilitation and Secondary Stroke Prevention Trials—A Scoping Review

S. Verma, Puja Gulati, Sanjali Ratra, J. Pandian
{"title":"Assessment of Process Evaluations of Complex Stroke Rehabilitation and Secondary Stroke Prevention Trials—A Scoping Review","authors":"S. Verma, Puja Gulati, Sanjali Ratra, J. Pandian","doi":"10.1177/25166085221150411","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Complexity of interventions and lack of methodological clarity makes process evaluations (PEs) challenging. Assessment of PEs conducted for complex stroke rehabilitation and nonpharmacologic secondary stroke prevention interventions is lacking with only one study conducted for the latter. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review. Methods Development and reporting of review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews. Research questions were identified and search phrases developed according to keywords on 3 electronic databases: PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. All titles and available abstracts were independently reviewed by 2 authors and disagreements settled by other authors. Inclusion criteria centered on complex secondary stroke nonpharmacologic prevention or a rehabilitation trial. Results Selected studies (n = 11) were derived from (n = 24) articles reporting on PE of main trial (n = 10). Studies are from 2015 onward with 9 studies for stroke rehabilitation and 1 from secondary stroke prevention, out of these 7 are randomized clinical trials. Medical Research Council’s framework was most widely used with common data collection method being interviews, surveys and log records. More than half of the studies are mobile health based which reveals future for stroke rehabilitation and stroke prevention interventions. We identified 3 themes on qualitative analysis of articles. Conclusion Paucity of relevant research studies indicates that more research should be carried out for PEs in stroke rehabilitation and prevention. Researchers in future may find guidance from this review where we support clarity on framework and its elements that helped to evaluate methodology.","PeriodicalId":93323,"journal":{"name":"Journal of stroke medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of stroke medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/25166085221150411","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background Complexity of interventions and lack of methodological clarity makes process evaluations (PEs) challenging. Assessment of PEs conducted for complex stroke rehabilitation and nonpharmacologic secondary stroke prevention interventions is lacking with only one study conducted for the latter. To address this gap, we conducted a scoping review. Methods Development and reporting of review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews. Research questions were identified and search phrases developed according to keywords on 3 electronic databases: PubMed, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library. All titles and available abstracts were independently reviewed by 2 authors and disagreements settled by other authors. Inclusion criteria centered on complex secondary stroke nonpharmacologic prevention or a rehabilitation trial. Results Selected studies (n = 11) were derived from (n = 24) articles reporting on PE of main trial (n = 10). Studies are from 2015 onward with 9 studies for stroke rehabilitation and 1 from secondary stroke prevention, out of these 7 are randomized clinical trials. Medical Research Council’s framework was most widely used with common data collection method being interviews, surveys and log records. More than half of the studies are mobile health based which reveals future for stroke rehabilitation and stroke prevention interventions. We identified 3 themes on qualitative analysis of articles. Conclusion Paucity of relevant research studies indicates that more research should be carried out for PEs in stroke rehabilitation and prevention. Researchers in future may find guidance from this review where we support clarity on framework and its elements that helped to evaluate methodology.
复杂脑卒中康复和二级脑卒中预防试验的过程评估——范围综述
干预措施的复杂性和缺乏方法清晰度使得过程评估(PEs)具有挑战性。对复杂卒中康复和非药物二级卒中预防干预的PEs评估缺乏,仅对后者进行了一项研究。为了解决这一差距,我们进行了范围审查。方法评价的制定和报告遵循系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)范围评价扩展的首选报告项目。在PubMed、Web of Science和Cochrane Library 3个电子数据库中,根据关键词确定研究问题并开发搜索短语。所有标题和可用摘要均由2位作者独立评审,分歧由其他作者解决。纳入标准集中于复杂继发性卒中的非药物预防或康复试验。所选研究(n = 11)来源于(n = 24)篇报道主试验PE (n = 10)的文章。研究从2015年开始,9项中风康复研究和1项二级中风预防研究,其中7项是随机临床试验。医学研究理事会的框架得到了最广泛的使用,常见的数据收集方法是访谈、调查和日志记录。超过一半的研究是基于移动健康的,这揭示了中风康复和中风预防干预的未来。我们确定了文章定性分析的3个主题。结论pe在脑卒中康复与预防中的应用研究尚不充分。未来的研究人员可能会从这篇综述中找到指导,我们支持清晰的框架及其有助于评估方法的要素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信