Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38354160›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Co-design for stroke intervention development: Results of a scoping review.

Hardeep Singh, Natasha Benn, Agnes Fung, Kristina M Kokorelias, Julia Martyniuk, Michelle L A Nelson, Heather Colquhoun, Jill I Cameron, Sarah Munce, Marianne Saragosa and 4 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

14 authors.

Hardeep SinghDepartment of Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7429-5580
Natasha BennThe KITE Research Institute, Toronto Rehabilitation Institute-University Health Network, Toronto, Canada.
Agnes FungDalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Kristina M KokoreliasDepartment of Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-1277-472X
Julia MartyniukGerstein Science Information Centre, University of Toronto Libraries, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Michelle L A NelsonInstitute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Heather ColquhounDepartment of Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jill I CameronDepartment of Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sarah MunceDepartment of Occupational Science & Occupational Therapy, Temerty Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Marianne SaragosaLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, Sinai Health System, Toronto, Canada.
Kian GodhwaniDepartment of Psychology, University of Toronto Scarborough, Toronto, Canada.
Aleena KhanBiological Sciences, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
Paul Yejong YooDivision of Neurosciences and Mental Health, The Hospital for Sick Children Research Institute, Toronto, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7327-8244
Kerry KuluskiInstitute for Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Research DesignStrokeData ManagementFocus GroupsHumans

Identifiers

PMID38354160
PMCPMC10866508

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.