ArticleNeurological research and practice2025
Process evaluation of a cross-sectoral, coordinated follow-up care of stroke patients: a qualitative study.
Article in Neurological research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04159324 (StroCare - Optimised Cross-sectoral, Coordinated Treatment of Stroke Patients With Patient-orientated Outcome Measurement), which is not on this 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.
StroCare - Optimised Cross-sectoral, Coordinated Treatment of Stroke Patients With Patient-orientated Outcome Measurement
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundImplementation of interventions to improve follow-up stroke care is complex due to the involvement of various stakeholders and challenges of health care coordination. The aim of this study was to evaluate the process of implementing a cross-sectoral, coordinated follow-up care for stroke patients (the StroCare intervention).
methodsAs part of a multicenter interventional trial, this qualitative study was performed in a pre-post design with semi-structured interviews conducted with patients and health care employees. The multicomponent intervention was implemented in eight participating acute care and rehabilitation clinics. The interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Contents were coded using eight a priori defined categories (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, sustainability, patient-centeredness, satisfaction with treatment, and pandemic-related effects) with the possibility of inductively developed categories.
resultsInterviews with 21 patients and 34 interviews with 23 employees were conducted. In addition to the deductive categories, three inductive categories (psychosocial implications, interconnectedness, and potential for improvement) emerged. Acceptability, adoption, and appropriateness were assessed positively before the intervention. However, poor feasibility had a negative impact on adoption and appropriateness. In contrast, outcomes related to patient care (patient-centeredness and psychosocial implications) were independent from this effect.
conclusionsSimilar to other implementation studies of stroke care interventions, implementation of eHealth Services in the StroCare project met barriers in usability and adaptability of new software. However, high adoption and appropriateness in regard to patient-centeredness, psychosocial implications, and an overall benefit for the patients supported continuation of the remaining intervention components. Trial registration The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04159324), registration date 12/11/19.
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.