ArticleBMJ open2022
Scoping review protocol of the use of codesign methods in stroke intervention development.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionCodesign is an emerging research method to enhance intervention development by actively engaging non-researchers (eg, people who have had a stroke, caregivers and clinicians) in research. The involvement of non-researchers in research is becoming increasingly popular within health studies as it may produce more relevant and effective findings. The stroke population commonly exhibits challenges such as aphasia and cognitive changes that may limit their participation in codesign. However, the use of codesign within the stroke literature has not been comprehensively reviewed. This scoping review will determine: (1) what is the extent, range and nature of stroke research that has used codesign methods? (2) What codesign methods have been used to develop stroke interventions? (3) What considerations for codesigning interventions with people who have stroke are not captured in the findings? METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a protocol for a scoping review to identify the literature relating to stroke, and codesign will be conducted on OVID Medline, OVID Embase, OVID PsychINFO, EBSCO CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, PEDro-Physiotherapy Evidence Database and Global Index Medicus. Studies of any design and publication date will be included. Title and abstract and full-text review will be conducted independently by two reviewers. Data will be extracted, collated and then summarised descriptively using quantitative (eg, numerical descriptions) and qualitative (eg, textual descriptions) methods. Numerical summaries will map the extent (eg, number of studies), range (eg, types of studies) and nature (eg, types of interventions developed) of the literature on this topic. A thematic analysis will provide insights into the codesign methods (eg, activities, non-researchers), including heterogeneity across and within studies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review protocol does not require ethics approval as data has not been collected/analysed. The findings will highlight opportunities and recommendations to inform future codesign research in stroke and other populations who exhibit similar challenges/disabilities, and they will be disseminated via publications, presentations and stakeholder meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERREGISTRATION: Open Science Framework: 10.17605/OSF.IO/NSD2W.
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.