ArticleAnnals of medicine2024
Acceptability of two mobile applications to support cross-sectoral, person-centred and empowering stroke rehabilitation - a process evaluation.
Article in Annals of medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Process evaluation of F@ce 2.0, a team-based, person-centred intervention for rehabilitation after stroke supported by ICT.BMC health services research · 2026Trial
- Thematic Structure of Clinical Rehabilitation Research in the Early Post-Pandemic Period: An LDA-Based Analysis of Publications from 2022 to 2025.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Transitional care interventions and outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: a scoping review.Disability and rehabilitation · 2026Review
- Feasibility of a novel web-based neuropsychological rehabilitation programme for stroke patients.Journal of rehabilitation medicine · 2025Article
- Development of a Cohesive Predictive Model for Substance Use Disorder Rehabilitation Using Passive Digital Biomarkers, Psychological Assessments, and Automated Facial Emotion Recognition: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Empowering Capabilities of People With Chronic Conditions Supported by Digital Health Technologies: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Family Members' Experiences of a Person-Centered Information and Communication Technology-Supported Intervention for Stroke Rehabilitation (F@ce 2.0): Qualitative Analysis.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2025Article
- Process evaluation of a cross-sectoral, coordinated follow-up care of stroke patients: a qualitative study.Neurological research and practice · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the acceptability of two co-designed mobile applications
settingThe applications were implemented and tested throughout two stroke rehabilitation trajectories in Southern Denmark, comprising two acute, two sub-acute and two municipal stroke rehabilitation settings. METHODS, PARTICIPANTS AND ANALYSIS: A process evaluation focusing on acceptability was conducted. Individual and dyadic interviews were performed with ten stroke survivors (three women and seven men, aged 50-84) with moderate stroke and seven significant others (five women and two men, aged 50-78) post-rehabilitation. A constructivist Grounded Theory analysis was used to explore what, why, when, and how the apps worked or did not work throughout the stroke rehabilitation trajectory and if adaptions were needed.
resultsParticipants found that
conclusionStroke survivors and their significant others found
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.