Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40275483›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society2025

Do self-management interventions improve self-efficacy and health-related quality of life after stroke? A systematic review.

Elizabeth A Lynch, Katie Nesbitt, Aarti Gulyani, Raymond J Chan, Niranjan Bidargaddi, Dominique A Cadilhac, Billie Bonevski, Fiona Jones, Liam P Allan, Erin Godecke and 6 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of stroke : official journal of the International Stroke Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

16 authors.

Elizabeth A LynchCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8756-1051
Katie NesbittCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Aarti GulyaniCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Raymond J ChanCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Niranjan BidargaddiFlinders Digital Health Research Centre, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Dominique A CadilhacStroke and Ageing Research, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8162-682X
Billie BonevskiFlinders Health and Medical Research Institute, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Fiona JonesPopulation Health Research Institute, St George's School of Health and Medical Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Liam P AllanStroke and Ageing Research, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-9291-080X
Erin GodeckeStroke Recovery and Rehabilitation, Perron Institute for Neurological and Translational Science, Perth, WA, Australia.
Rebecca BarndenPeninsula Clinical School, School of Translational Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Emily BroganFaculty of Health Sciences, Curtin University, Perth, WA, Australia.
Thoshenthri KandasamyCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Stacy LarcombeCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Lemma N BultoCaring Futures Institute, College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia.
Coralie EnglishSchool of Health Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5910-7927

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionSelf-management interventions are recommended after stroke in many international guidelines to improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Self-efficacy, a person's confidence in their abilities, is widely considered to underpin individuals' abilities to self-manage their health.

aimsTo synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of self-management programs for improving self-efficacy or HRQoL in stroke survivors. SUMMARY OF REVIEW: The protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42023440168). We searched databases including Medline, Emcare, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and trial registries from inception to 13/12/2024. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of a self-management intervention to no/another intervention for survivors of stroke on self-efficacy or HRQoL were included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration criteria. Meta-analyses for self-efficacy and HRQoL were performed using random effect model. From 13,608 abstracts screened, 44 randomized controlled trials involving 5931 participants were included. Median time post-stroke of recruited participants ranged from 14 days to 3 years. Time required to deliver the interventions ranged from 45 min to 72 h. Self-management interventions in all included trials had multiple components, predominantly education (N = 40, 91%) and goal setting (N = 39, 89%). Interventions were delivered to individual survivors of stroke (N = 18, 41%), groups of survivors (N = 15, 34%), both individual and group delivery to survivors (N = 5, 11%) and individually to survivor-carer dyads (N = 6, 14%). Interventions were delivered entirely face-to-face (N = 28, 64%), entirely by phone or video-conferencing (N = 7, 16%) or a combination of these delivery modes (N = 9, 20%). There was low certainty evidence that self-management programs compared to no intervention did not significantly improve self-efficacy on pooled effect sizes (SMD 0.08, 95%CI -0.02 to 0.18). There was moderate certainty evidence that self-management programs had a marginal significant effect on HRQoL (SMD 0.07, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.13). Limitations to the review include marked variation between included studies in the interventions delivered, and outcome measures used, targeted behaviors and time since stroke.

conclusionSelf-management programs varied markedly in content and dose. There is low-certainty evidence that currently designed self-management programs do not significantly improve self-efficacy. There is moderate certainty evidence that self-management programs have a small effect on HRQoL after stroke.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeSelf EfficacySelf-ManagementStrokeStroke RehabilitationHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as Topichealth-related quality of lifeself-efficacyself-managementStroke

Identifiers

PMID40275483
PMCPMC12264303

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.