ArticleClinical rehabilitation2025
Co-designing and testing a management programme with peer support for post-stroke fatigue: Nottingham fatigue after stroke study (NotFAST3).
Article in Clinical rehabilitation, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveTo develop and test a novel programme to support post-stroke fatigue management for testing in a future clinical trial.DesignStaged approach to development and preliminary testing. Phases 1 and 2: co-design groups held to agree programme content and resources. Phase 3: training for facilitators developed and delivered. Phase 4: feasibility of programme delivery tested with questionnaires completed at beginning and end, and feedback interviews conducted.SettingCommunity, online.ParticipantsStroke survivors with post-stroke fatigue, carers and healthcare professionals.InterventionPost-stroke fatigue management programme supported by 'buddies' with lived or professional experience of managing fatigue.Main measuresIn phase 4, we examined feasibility of programme delivery (recruitment, retention, engagement and acceptability) and preliminary signals of efficacy.ResultsIn phases 1 and 2 we recruited 23 participants (16 stroke survivors, 2 carers and 5 healthcare professionals) and designed resources. In phase 3, 10 people supported training development: 7 received training to be buddies. In phase 4 we recruited 15 people with fatigue; 13 completed the programme. Of these, 13 completed baseline and 12 follow-up questionnaires. All buddies (7/7) and 12/13 participants were interviewed. Mean number of sessions delivered was 9 (SD 3.24; range 3-13) and ranged from 10 to 60 minutes (mean 28 minutes; SD 10.04). Overall, mean fatigue severity reduced, activity increased, and mood measures improved. Participants and buddies were positive about the programme and believed it was worthwhile.ConclusionsThe programme was acceptable and feasible, with preliminary evidence of efficacy, but some issues need to be addressed in future trial design.
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.