Trial reportBMC health services research2025
Screening and care for emotional and cognitive problems after stroke: a prospective mixed-methods process evaluation of a cluster-randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC health services research, 2025. 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.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEmotional and cognitive problems are prevalent after stroke. We developed an intervention including screening for emotional and cognitive problems, screening for participation restrictions, self-management support including education and, if needed, referral to rehabilitation services. This intervention was delivered through a nurse-led outpatient consultation at six weeks after stroke. Its effectiveness was examined in a patient-blinded, cluster-randomized controlled trial and its feasibility in a process evaluation. This process evaluation aims to (1) assess the reach, dose and fidelity of the intervention, (2) evaluate barriers and facilitators to implementation and (3) explore experiences from the perspective of healthcare providers.
methodsA mixed-methods study was conducted. Specialized nurses offering the intervention completed registration forms to evaluate the reach, dose and fidelity of the intervention. The Barriers and Facilitators Instrument (BFAI) was used to evaluate barriers and facilitators. Furthermore, the specialized nurses participated in a group interview to explore experiences in delivering the intervention. Group interviews were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.
resultsIn total, 262 of 264 patients (99.2%) attended the intervention. In 233 patients (88.9%), all screening instruments were completed. The BFAI demonstrated that the intervention was feasible and was not considered time-consuming or hindered by contextual factors. Barriers to deliver the intervention were limited to patient characteristics. During group interviews, specialized nurses reported that the intervention significantly overlapped with care as usual prior to start of the trial, yet indicated that the intervention provided a more profound understanding of post-stroke sequelae.
conclusionsThe implementation of a nurse-led intervention, comprising screening and care for emotional and cognitive problems after stroke, was generally well executed and deemed feasible. If this intervention proves to be clinically and/or cost-effective in our upcoming primary analyses, we will advocate to incorporate it in daily clinical practice and to adhere to the implementation strategy as presented in this process evaluation.
trial registrationThis study was registered at 25 September 2018 in the Netherlands Trial Register (NL7295).
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.