ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2006
Feasibility study of a primary care-based model for stroke aftercare.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- A problem-solving early intervention for stroke caregivers: one year follow-up.Rehabilitation nursing : the official journal of the Association of Rehabilitation NursesTrial
- Action Plan for Stroke in Europe 2018-2030.European stroke journal · 2018Article
- Article
- Socioeconomic deprivation and accident and emergency attendances: cross-sectional analysis of general practices in England.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2015Article
- A process evaluation of a stroke-specific follow-up care model for stroke patients and caregivers; a longitudinal study.BMC nursing · 2015Article
- Feasibility of assessing the needs of stroke patients after six months using the GM-SAT.Clinical rehabilitation · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA new primary care model for stroke aftercare has been developed to address the longer-term needs of patients who have had a stroke and their families.
aimTo test the feasibility and acceptability of the new model on patients who have had a stroke and their carers. DESIGN OF STUDY: An observational feasibility study.
settingPatient and carer assessments and interviews conducted in patients' homes.
methodPatients who have had a stroke, and their carers, were assessed using a purposely developed primary care stroke model. Qualified health- and social-care professionals acted as stroke care coordinators and carried out the assessments. Four evaluations were undertaken as part of the study: analysis of care plans, a survey of unmet needs, focus group sessions for staff, and patient/carer interviews.
resultsForty-seven patients and 21 carers were recruited to the study. Analysis of care plans indicated that the assessment process was successful in identifying patient and carer problems (n = 219). Actions were instigated against 190 of these problems and, at 3 months after the assessment, 75% of the problems had been resolved. Patients/carers thought that the review process would be more valuable if conducted sooner after hospital discharge.
conclusionThe model was acceptable to professionals, encouraging them to work in a manner more consistent with the expressed needs of patients and carers who were adjusting to the longer-term impact of stroke. Essential aspects informing the care process were also identified. Further work is now required to investigate the effects of the intervention on patient and carer outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
17007708PMC1920718W202761951What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.