ReviewChinese medical journal2016
High-quality Health Information Provision for Stroke Patients.
Review in Chinese medical journal, 2016. 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.
- Exploring Education Interventions for Stroke Prevention Among Adults and Older Individuals: A Scoping Review.Health science reports · 2024Article
- The Online Health Information-Seeking Behaviors of People Who Have Experienced Stroke: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Redesigning Rural Acute Stroke Care: A Person-Centered Approach.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- International stem cell tourism: a critical literature review and evidence-based recommendations.International health · 2022Review
- A study on women's health information needs in menopausal age.BMC women's health · 2021Article
- Trustworthiness, Readability, and Suitability of Web-Based Information for Stroke Prevention and Self-Management for Korean Americans: Critical Evaluation.Interactive journal of medical research · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveHigh-quality information provision can allow stroke patients to effectively participate in healthcare decision-making, better manage the stroke, and make a good recovery. In this study, we reviewed information needs of stroke patients, methods for providing information to patients, and considerations needed by the information providers. DATA SOURCES: The literature concerning or including information provision for patients with stroke in English was collected from PubMed published from 1990 to 2015. STUDY SELECTION: We included all the relevant articles on information provision for stroke patients in English, with no limitation of study design.
resultsStroke is a major public health concern worldwide. High-quality and effective health information provision plays an essential role in helping patients to actively take part in decision-making and healthcare, and empowering them to effectively self-manage their long-standing chronic conditions. Different methods for providing information to patients have their relative merits and suitability, and as a result, the effective strategies taken by health professionals may include providing high-quality information, meeting patients' individual needs, using suitable methods in providing information, and maintaining active involvement of patients.
conclusionsIt is suggested that to enable stroke patients to access high-quality health information, greater efforts need to be made to ensure patients to receive accurate and current evidence-based information which meets their individual needs. Health professionals should use suitable information delivery methods, and actively involve stroke patients in information provision.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.