ArticlePloS one2024
Co-design for stroke intervention development: Results of a scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility and Acceptability of the Living My Life Program for Rural and Remote Stroke Survivors.The Australian journal of rural health · 2026Trial
- Coproducing an intervention to support stroke unit staff to provide information about recovery to patients and carers.PEC innovation · 2026Article
- Review
- A Smart Textile Biofeedback Training System for Upper Limb Rehabilitation After Stroke: Co-Design Development and Evaluation Study.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2026Article
- Evaluating co-design processes used in the development of healthcare interventions in residential aged care: a scoping review.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- The involvement of individuals with speech and language impairments in research: insights from a co-creation process.Research involvement and engagement · 2025Article
- Navigating the life stage after stroke: From Life 2.0 to stroke prevention models of care - A qualitative exploration of younger and middle-aged adult stroke patients' experiences and recommendations.Qualitative research in medicine & healthcare · 2025Article
- Development of a cohort multiple randomized clinical trial to test an integrated system of sensors and multimedia monitors technology, for stroke rehabilitation: the ROOMMATE study protocol.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Article
- Citizen science approaches in the development of post-stroke physical activity interventions: A scoping review.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCo-design methodology seeks to actively engage end-users in developing interventions. It is increasingly used to design stroke interventions; however, limited guidance exists, particularly with/for individuals with stroke who have diverse cognitive, physical and functional abilities. Thus, we describe 1) the extent of existing research that has used co-design for stroke intervention development and 2) how co-design has been used to develop stroke interventions among studies that explicitly used co-design, including the rationale, types of co-designed stroke interventions, participants involved, research methodologies/approaches, methods of incorporating end-users in the research, co-design limitations, challenges and potential strategies reported by researchers. MATERIALS AND
methodsA scoping review informed by Joanna Briggs Institute and Arksey & O'Malley methodology was conducted by searching nine databases on December 21, 2022, to locate English-language literature that used co-design to develop a stroke intervention. Additional data sources were identified through a hand search. Data sources were de-duplicated, and two research team members reviewed their titles, abstracts and full text to ensure they met the inclusion criteria. Data relating to the research objectives were extracted, analyzed, and reported numerically and descriptively.
resultsData sources used co-design for stroke intervention development with (n = 89) and without (n = 139) explicitly using the term 'co-design.' Among studies explicitly using co-design, it was commonly used to understand end-user needs and generate new ideas. Many co-designed interventions were technology-based (65%), and 48% were for physical rehabilitation or activity-based. Co-design was commonly conducted with multiple participants (82%; e.g., individuals with stroke, family members/caregivers and clinicians) and used various methods to engage end-users, including focus groups and workshops. Limitations, challenges and potential strategies for recruitment, participant-engagement, contextual and logistical and ethics of co-designed interventions were described.
conclusionsGiven the increasing popularity of co-design as a methodology for developing stroke interventions internationally, these findings can inform future co-designed studies.
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.