ArticleBMC health services research2025
Exploring variation in the six-month review for stroke survivors: a national survey of current practice in England.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Primary care-based interventions for post-stroke follow-up for long-term care: a systematic review.Family practice · 2026Pooled it
- The safety and efficacy of high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in post-stroke patients with moderate functional impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Pooled it
- Implementing and sustaining 6-month post-stroke reviews: a complexity-informed, context-sensitive programme theory for clinical practice.Frontiers in stroke · 2026Article
- Stroke survivors' and carers' experiences of nutritional care after stroke: a qualitative study.Frontiers in stroke · 2026Article
- Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe Six-Month Review (6MR) was introduced in the United Kingdom to provide a holistic, systematic review of the ongoing needs faced by stroke survivors. However, a theoretical underpinning regarding how it should work is lacking, potentially leading to wide variation in service provision. This study aimed to understand the current degree of variation in 6MR delivery across England and explore the potential driving factors.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted via an online survey distributed to 6MR services within England. Data were collected over 12 weeks in 2023. Descriptive statistics were used to demonstrate the degree of variation in service delivery, and associations were explored between features of the 6MR service and contextual factors.
resultsNinety-two responses were received, representing approximately 53% of 6MR services in England. Wide variation was observed in relation to service structure, content and processes, and in how outcomes, experience and effectiveness are measured. A number of significant associations were observed between features of the 6MR and contextual factors, most commonly, in relation to the provider organisation.
conclusionsThis study highlights the degree of variation in 6MR delivery across England. The provider organisation may be a driving factor for this variation that warrants further investigation. Future research should focus on understanding how, and under what circumstances, the 6MR works so that its effectiveness can be evaluated and best practice established.
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.