Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35999689›Full record

Trial reportHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2022

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).

Tara Purvis, Doreen Busingye, Nadine E Andrew, Monique F Kilkenny, Amanda G Thrift, Jonathan C Li, Jan Cameron, Vincent Thijs, Maree L Hackett, Ian Kneebone and 2 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Development of a Health Text Message System to Support Stroke Prevention: A Component of the Love Your Brain Digital Platform.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

12 authors.

Tara PurvisStroke and Ageing Research, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3332-5357
Doreen BusingyeStroke and Ageing Research, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
Nadine E AndrewPeninsula Clinical School, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4846-2840
Monique F KilkennyStroke and Ageing Research, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3375-287X
Amanda G ThriftStroke and Ageing Research, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8533-4170
Jonathan C LiDepartment of Electrical and Computer Systems Engineering, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jan CameronStroke and Ageing Research, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3335-904X
Vincent ThijsStroke Division, Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, The University of Melbourne, Heidelberg, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6614-8417
Maree L HackettThe George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1211-9087
Ian KneeboneGraduate School of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-3324-7264
Natasha A LanninDepartment of Neuroscience, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2066-8345
Dominique A CadilhacStroke and Ageing Research, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8162-682X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDespite digital health tools being popular for supporting self-management of chronic diseases, little research has been undertaken on stroke. We developed and pilot tested, using a randomized controlled design, a multicomponent digital health programme, known as Inspiring Virtual Enabled Resources following Vascular Events (iVERVE), to improve self-management after stroke. The 4-week trial incorporated facilitated person-centred goal setting, with those in the intervention group receiving electronic messages aligned to their goals, versus limited administrative messages for the control group. In this paper, we describe the participant experience of the various components involved with the iVERVE trial.

methodsMixed method design: satisfaction surveys (control and intervention) and a focus group interview (purposively selected intervention participants). Experiences relating to goal setting and overall trial satisfaction were obtained from intervention and control participants, with feedback on the electronic message component from intervention participants. Inductive thematic analysis was used for interview data and open-text responses, and closed questions were summarized descriptively. Triangulation of data allowed participants' perceptions to be explored in depth.

resultsOverall, 27/54 trial participants completed the survey (13 intervention: 52%; 14 control: 48%); and 5/8 invited participants in the intervention group attended the focus group. Goal setting: The approach was considered comprehensive, with the involvement of health professionals in the process helpful in developing realistic, meaningful and person-centred goals. Electronic messages (intervention): Messages were perceived as easy to understand (92%), and the frequency of receipt was considered appropriate (11/13 survey; 4/5 focus group). The content of messages was considered motivational (62%) and assisted participants to achieve their goals (77%). Some participants described the benefits of receiving messages as a 'reminder' to act. Overall trial satisfaction: Messages were acceptable for educating about stroke (77%). Having options for short message services or email to receive messages was considered important. Feedback on the length of the intervention related to specific goals, and benefits of receiving the programme earlier after stroke was expressed.

conclusionThe participant experience has indicated acceptance and utility of iVERVE. Feedback from this evaluation is invaluable to inform refinements to future Phase II and III trials, and wider research in the field. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two consumer representatives sourced from the Stroke Foundation (Australia) actively contributed to the design of the iVERVE programme. In this study, participant experiences directly contributed to the further development of the iVERVE intervention and future trial design.

Indexed as

Self-ManagementStrokeText MessagingHumansPilot ProjectsSurveys and Questionnairesdigital healtheHealthfeedbackgoal settingparticipant experienceself-managementstroke

Identifiers

PMID35999689
PMCPMC9615081

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.