Observational studyJournal of rehabilitation medicine2022
A process evaluation of patient care needs using the Post-Stroke Checklist: A prospective study.
Observational study in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Protocol for a feasibility registry-based randomised controlled trial investigating a tailored follow-up service for stroke (A-LISTS).Pilot and feasibility studies · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the utility of the modified Post-Stroke Checklist (mPSC) to identify impairments and care needs of patients with stroke (PwS) in an inpatient rehabilitation setting.
methodsProspective observational design with consecutive admission of PwS (n = 44) at a tertiary rehabilitation facility. The post-stroke checklist was administered at hospital discharge (T1) and 3 months post-discharge (T2). Furthermore, validated questionnaires assessed function and participation, including the Clinical Functioning Information Tool (ClinFIT) on admission (T0), T1 and T2.
resultsParticipants' mean age was 67.7 years (standard deviation; SD) 14.6), 58% of participants were female, and the mean length of inpatient stay was 32.7 days (SD 22.4). At T1, 80% and at T2 only 60% of participants reported ≥1 stroke-related problem (mean 5.3 (SD 3.3) and 3.6 (SD 2.8), respectively). Half of participants were referred to physiotherapy/occupational therapy, and 36% to specialist clinics following discharge. The most prevalent problems included: life after stroke (62.2%), fatigue (55.6%), activities of daily living, and mobility (51.1% each). Compared with T1, at T2 there was an observed reduction in all mPSC items, except pain and incontinence. Participants showed improved function at T1 and T2 (Extension Index, ClinFIT set), from T0 to T1 and T0 to T2 (p<0.001, with large effect sizes).
conclusionThe mPSC is feasible to implement in an inpatient rehabilitation setting and community. It can identify relevant stroke-related problems, and hence facilitate targeted intervention.
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.