ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Co-Designed Cardiac Rehabilitation for the Secondary Prevention of Stroke (CARESS): A Pilot Program Evaluation.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Structured health system-based programs, such as cardiac rehabilitation, may reduce the risk of recurrent stroke. This study aimed to co-design and evaluate a structured program of rehabilitation, developed based on insights from focus groups involving stroke survivors and health professionals. Conducted in Tasmania, Australia in 2019, the 7-week program comprised one hour of group exercise and one hour of education each week. Functional capacity (6 min walk test), fatigue, symptoms of depression (Patient Health Questionnaire), and lifestyle were assessed pre- and post-program, with a historical control group for comparison. Propensity score matching determined the average treatment effect (ATE) of the program. Key themes from the co-design focus groups included the need for coordinated care, improved psychosocial management, and including carers and peers in programs. Of the 23 people approached, 10 participants (70% men, mean age 67.4 ± 8.6 years) completed the program without adverse events. ATE analysis revealed improvements in functional capacity (139 m, 95% CI 44, 234) and fatigue (-5 units, 95% CI -9, -1), with a small improvement in symptoms of depression (-0.8 units, 95% CI -1.8, 0.2) compared to controls. The co-designed program demonstrated feasibility, acceptability, and positive outcomes, suggesting its potential to support stroke survivors.
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.