Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33138735›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society2021

Addressing inactivity after stroke: The Collaborative Rehabilitation in Acute Stroke (CREATE) study.

Fiona Jones, Karolina Gombert-, Stephanie Honey, Geoffrey Cloud, Ruth Harris, Alastair Macdonald, Christopher McKevitt, Glenn Robert, David Clarke

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Using co-design methods to develop new personalised support for people living with Long Covid: The 'LISTEN' intervention.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Fiona JonesFaculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University & St George's, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-1452-3895
Karolina Gombert-Faculty of Health, Social Care and Education, Kingston University & St George's, University of London, London, UK.
Stephanie HoneyLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Geoffrey CloudAlfred Health, Melbourne, Australia.
Ruth HarrisFaculty of Nursing, Midwifery and Palliative Care, King's College London, London, UK.
Alastair MacdonaldSchool of Design, Glasgow School of Art, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9282-6229
Christopher McKevittFaculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, School of Population Health & Environmental Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Glenn RobertDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8781-6675
David ClarkeLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
King's College London · GBSt George's, University of London · GBUniversity of Leeds · GBAlfred Health · AUGlasgow School of Art · GBMonash University · AU

Funding

Department of Health 13/114/95
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStroke patients are often inactive outside of structured therapy sessions - an enduring international challenge despite large scale organizational changes, national guidelines and performance targets. We examined whether experienced-based co-design (EBCD) - an improvement methodology - could address inactivity in stroke units.

aimsTo evaluate the feasibility and impact of patients, carers, and staff co-designing and implementing improvements to increase supervised and independent therapeutic patient activity in stroke units and to compare use of full and accelerated EBCD cycles.

methodsMixed-methods case comparison in four stroke units in England.

resultsInterviews were held with 156 patients, staff, and carers in total; ethnographic observations for 364 hours, behavioral mapping of 68 patients, and self-report surveys from 179 patients, pre- and post-implementation of EBCD improvement cycles.Three priority areas emerged: (1) 'Space' (environment); (2) 'Activity opportunities' and (3) 'Communication'. More than 40 improvements were co-designed and implemented to address these priorities across participating units. Post-implementation interview and ethnographic observational data confirmed use of new social spaces and increased activity opportunities. However, staff interactions remained largely task-driven with limited focus on enabling patient activity. Behavioral mapping indicated some increases in social, cognitive, and physical activity post-implementation, but was variable across sites. Survey responses rates were low at 12-38% and inconclusive.

conclusionIt was feasible to implement EBCD in stroke units. This resulted in multiple improvements in stroke unit environments and increased activity opportunities but minimal change in recorded activity levels. There was no discernible difference in experience or outcome between full and accelerated EBCD; this methodology could be used across hospital stroke units to assist staff and other stakeholders to co-design and implement improvement plans.

Indexed as

StrokeStroke RehabilitationCaregiversHospitalsHospital UnitsHumansSurveys and Questionnairesco-designinactivityStroke

Identifiers

PMID33138735
PMCPMC8366168
OpenAlexW3096841084

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.