ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2019
How to improve eRehabilitation programs in stroke care? A focus group study to identify requirements of end-users.
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mixed methods evaluation to explore participant experiences of a pilot randomized trial to facilitate self-management of people living with stroke: Inspiring virtual enabled resources following vascular events (iVERVE).Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Trial
- Accessibility features in executive function apps and user performance post-stroke.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- User Needs for an Artificial Intelligence-Empowered Basic Activities of Daily Living Training System After Stroke: A Qualitative Study.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Designing eHealth interventions for children with complex care needs requires continuous stakeholder collaboration and co-creation.PEC innovation · 2024Article
- Requirements for home-based upper extremity rehabilitation using wearable motion sensors for stroke patients: a user-centred approach.Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology · 2024Article
- Telehealth in Informal Caregivers of Stroke Survivors: A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Investigation of Study Procedures to Estimate Sensitivity and Reliability of a Virtual Physical Assessment Developed for Workplace Concussions: Method-Comparison Feasibility Study.JMIR neurotechnology · 2024Article
- Using experience-based co-design to develop mobile/tablet applications to support a person-centred and empowering stroke rehabilitation.Research involvement and engagement · 2023Article
- Factors that influence the adoption of rehabilitation technologies: a multi-disciplinary qualitative exploration.Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation · 2023Article
- Use of the Digital Assistant Vigo in the Home Environment for Stroke Recovery: Focus Group Discussion With Specialists Working in Neurorehabilitation.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2023Article
- Ethical, Legal, Organisational and Social Issues of Teleneurology: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Factors that influence the provision of home-based rehabilitation services for people needing rehabilitation: a qualitative evidence synthesis.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Review
- Methods for Human-Centered eHealth Development: Narrative Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Ensuring patient and public involvement in the transition to AI-assisted mental health care: A systematic scoping review and agenda for design justice.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Neuromechanical Biomarkers for Robotic Neurorehabilitation.Frontiers in neurorobotics · 2021Review
- Understanding the Methodological Issues and Solutions in the Research Design of Stroke Caregiving Technology.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Physiotherapists' and occupational therapists' perspectives on information and communication technology in stroke rehabilitation.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA user-centered design approach for eHealth interventions improves their effectiveness in stroke rehabilitation. Nevertheless, insight into requirements of end-users (patients/informal caregivers and/or health professionals) for eRehabilitation is lacking. The aim of this study was to identify end-user requirements for a comprehensive eHealth program in stroke rehabilitation.
methodsEight focus groups were conducted to identify user requirements; six with patients/informal caregivers and two with health professionals involved in stroke rehabilitation (rehabilitation physicians, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, psychologists, team coordinators, speech therapist). The focus groups were audiotaped and transcribed in full. Direct content analysis was used to identify the end-user requirements for stroke eHealth interventions concerning three categories: accessibility, usability and content.
resultsIn total, 45 requirements for the accessibility, usability and content of a stroke eRehabilitation program emerged from the focus groups. Most requirements concerned content (27 requirements), followed by usability (12 requirements) and accessibility (6 requirements). Patients/informal caregivers and health professionals each identified 37 requirements, respectively, with 29 of them overlapping.
conclusionsRequirements between stroke patients/informal caregivers and health professionals differed on several aspects. Therefore, involving the perspectives of all end users in the design process of stroke eRehabilitation programs is needed to achieve a user-centered design.
trial registrationThe study was approved by the Medical Ethical Review Board of the Leiden University Medical Center [P15.281].
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.