Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39080727›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2024

Protocol for a feasibility registry-based randomised controlled trial investigating a tailored follow-up service for stroke (A-LISTS).

Dominique A Cadilhac, Andrew G Ross, Kathleen L Bagot, Jannette M Blennerhassett, Monique F Kilkenny, Joosup Kim, Tara Purvis, Karen M Barclay, Fiona Ellery, Julie Morrison and 12 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pilot and feasibility studies, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

22 authors.

Dominique A CadilhacStroke Theme, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia. dominique.cadilhac@monash.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8162-682X
Andrew G RossStroke Theme, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4680-7419
Kathleen L BagotStroke Theme, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2895-4327
Jannette M BlennerhassettPhysiotherapy Department and Health Independence Program, Austin Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9883-047X
Monique F KilkennyStroke Theme, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3375-287X
Joosup KimStroke Theme, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8626-2313
Tara PurvisStroke and Ageing Research, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3332-5357
Karen M BarclayStroke Theme, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9606-7821
Fiona ElleryStroke Theme, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7302-1895
Julie MorrisonStroke Theme, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5951-1233
Jennifer CranefieldDepartment of Neurology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Timothy J KleinigDepartment of Neurology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4430-3276
Rohan GrimleySchool of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Birtinya, QLD, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7006-6908
Katherine JaquesWesley Mission Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.
Dana WongSchool of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Bundoora, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9619-1929
Lisa MurphyStroke Foundation, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Grant RussellDepartment of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, School of Public Health and Preventative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3773-2355
Mark R NelsonMenzies Institute for Medical Research, University of Tasmania, Hobart, TAS, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9941-7161
Vincent ThijsStroke Theme, The Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, Heidelberg, VIC, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6614-8417
Colin ScottStroke Association of Victoria, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Sandy MiddletonNursing Research Institute, St Vincent's Health Network Sydney and Australian Catholic University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7201-4394
A-LISTS investigator group

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP2008668
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStroke affects long-term physical and cognitive function; many survivors report unmet health needs, such as pain or depression. A hospital-led follow-up service designed to address ongoing health problems may avoid unplanned readmissions and improve quality of life.

methodsThis paper outlines the protocol for a registry-based, randomised controlled trial with allocation concealment of participants and outcome assessors. Based on an intention-to-treat analysis, we will evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, potential effectiveness and cost implications of a new tailored, codesigned, hospital-led follow-up service for people within 6-12 months of stroke. Participants (n = 100) from the Australian Stroke Clinical Registry who report extreme health problems on the EuroQol EQ-5D-3L survey between 90 and 180 days after stroke will be randomly assigned (1:1) to intervention (follow-up service) or control (usual care) groups. All participants will be independently assessed at baseline and 12-14-week post-randomisation. Primary outcomes for feasibility are the proportion of participants completing the trial and for intervention participants the proportion that received follow-up services. Acceptability is satisfaction of clinicians and participants involved in the intervention. Secondary outcomes include effectiveness: change in extreme health problems (EQ-5D-3L), unmet needs (Longer-term Unmet Needs questionnaire), unplanned presentations and hospital readmission, functional independence (modified Rankin Scale) and cost implications estimated from self-reported health service utilisation and productivity (e.g. workforce participation). To inform future research or implementation, the design contains a process evaluation including clinical protocol fidelity and an economic evaluation. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide improved knowledge of service design and implementation barriers and facilitators and associated costs and resource implications to inform a future fully powered effectiveness trial of the intervention.

trial registrationACTRN12622001015730pr. TRIAL SPONSOR: Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Health, 245 Burgundy Street, Heidelberg, VIC, 3084, PH: +61 3 9035 7032.

Indexed as

Clinical Quality RegistryClinical trial protocolFollow-up serviceStroke

Identifiers

PMID39080727
PMCPMC11290067

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.