Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39267177›Full record

ArticlePilot and feasibility studies2024

In-person and online mixed method non-randomised studies exploring feasibility and acceptability of HEADS: UP, an adapted Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction programme for stroke survivors experiencing symptoms of anxiety and depression.

Maggie Lawrence, Bridget Davis, Naomi E Clark, Jo Booth, Graeme Donald, Nadine Dougall, Madeleine Grealy, Bhautesh Jani, Jennifer MacDonald, Helen Mason and 5 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. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Feasibility and Acceptability of a Remote, Asynchronous, Stroke-Tailored Mindfulness Intervention for Stroke Survivors and Support Persons.The Journal of neuroscience nursing : journal of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses
    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

15 authors.

Maggie LawrenceResearch Centre for Health (ReaCH), Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU), Glasgow, Scotland, G4 0BA, UK. Maggie.lawrence@icloud.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1685-4639
Bridget DavisResearch Centre for Health (ReaCH), Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU), Glasgow, Scotland, G4 0BA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6935-0891
Naomi E ClarkResearch Centre for Health (ReaCH), Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU), Glasgow, Scotland, G4 0BA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9171-6255
Jo BoothResearch Centre for Health (ReaCH), Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU), Glasgow, Scotland, G4 0BA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7870-6391
Graeme DonaldSchool of Health and Society, University of Salford, Salford, M6 6PU, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5405-9222
Nadine DougallHealth and Social Care Sciences, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, EH11 4BN, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3462-6960
Madeleine GrealyPsychological Services and Health, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, G1 1XQ, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2823-8841
Bhautesh JaniGeneral Practice and Primary Care, School of Health and Wellbeing, MVLS, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, G12 9LJ, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7348-514X
Jennifer MacDonaldResearch Centre for Health (ReaCH), Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU), Glasgow, Scotland, G4 0BA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3896-0846
Helen MasonYunus Centre, GCU, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9303-2794
Margaret MaxwellNursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions Research Unit, Faculty of Health Sciences and Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, FK9 4LA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3318-9500
Ben ParkinsonResearch Centre for Health (ReaCH), Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU), Glasgow, Scotland, G4 0BA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1112-4389
Matilde PieriResearch Centre for Health (ReaCH), Glasgow Caledonian University (GCU), Glasgow, Scotland, G4 0BA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4704-5930
Xu WangSchool of Humanities and Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, PD405 Portland Building, City Campus, Leeds, LS1 3HE, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6368-4698
Stewart MercerPrimary Care and Multimorbidity, Usher Institute, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, EH8 9AG, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1703-3664

Funding

UK Stroke Association SA_PPA_18_100011.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDepression and anxiety are prevalent after stroke and associated with poor outcomes. We previously co-developed a stroke-specific self-management intervention, HEADS: UP (Helping Ease Anxiety and Depression after Stroke). The two studies reported here aimed to test the feasibility and acceptability of the HEADS: UP course and supporting materials, and research processes ahead of a definitive trial.

methodsWe recruited community-dwelling stroke survivors (SS) ≥ 3 months post-stroke, with symptoms of mood disorder (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale ≥ 8). Participants could 'enrol' a family member/ 'other' to take part with them, if desired. Study 1 tested HEADS: UP delivered in-person, and informed optimisation of research processes and intervention delivery and materials. In a pragmatic response to Covid-related socialising restrictions, HEADS: UP was then adapted for online delivery, tested in Study 2. The primary outcome (both studies) was the feasibility (acceptability, fidelity) of the intervention and of research processes. Quantitative data (including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) assessing mood and quality of life) and qualitative data were collected pre-/post-intervention. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse quantitative data; a thematic framework approach was used to analyse qualitative data. Both studies received ethical approval prior to commencement.

resultsStudy 1 Feasibility: 13 (59.1%) of 22 potentially eligible stroke survivors consented; aged 66 (median, interquartile range (IQR) 14); male (n = 9; 69%); 28 (IQR 34) months post-stroke. Of these, n = 10 (76.9%) completed PROMS pre-intervention; n = 6 (46.2%) post-intervention. Acceptability: Nine (69.2%) of the 13 participants attended ≥ 4 core intervention sessions. Aspects of screening and data collection were found to be burdensome. Study 2 Feasibility: SS n = 9 (41%) of 22 potentially eligible stroke survivors consented; aged 58 years (median; IQR 12); male (n = 4; 44.4%); 23 (IQR 34) months post-stroke. Of these, n = 5 (55.6%) completed PROMS pre-intervention; n = 5 (55.6%) post-intervention. Acceptability: Five (55.6%) of the 9 participants attended ≥ 4 core sessions. They found online screening and data collection processes straightforward.

Indexed as

AcceptabilityAnxietyDepressionFeasibilityGroup-basedIn-personMindfulnessOnlineSelf-managementStroke

Identifiers

PMID39267177
PMCPMC11391595

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.