ArticleJournal of health, population, and nutrition2025
Assessing stroke survivors' knowledge: a scoping review of tools and influencing factors.
Article in Journal of health, population, and nutrition, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStroke survivors' knowledge of their condition is essential for self-management and adherence to secondary prevention strategies. However, current methods for assessing stroke knowledge are not consistent. This scoping review aimed to review existing assessment tools, evaluate their characteristics, and identify factors associated with stroke knowledge to inform the development of more effective, patient-centred educational strategies. REVIEW DESIGN AND
methodsA scoping review was conducted to evaluate existing methods used to assess stroke knowledge and the factors influencing patients' knowledge among stroke survivors. Systematic searches of PubMed, Cochrane, and CINAHL were performed from inception to June 2025. Studies assessing stroke survivors' knowledge were included. Data were extracted on tool characteristics, assessed themes, administration methods, readability, validation, and knowledge-associated factors. Findings were qualitatively synthesised.
resultsThirty-nine studies were included. Most studies assessed mixed cohorts of ischaemic, haemorrhagic, and TIAs. Stroke symptoms and risk factors were the most frequently assessed themes, while rehabilitation, medications, and lifestyle behaviours were less explored. Tools were primarily self-administered questionnaires, typically completed in under 15 min, but often lacked standardised cut-off values and demonstrated limited reporting of development processes. Factors positively associated with knowledge included higher education, younger age, and healthier lifestyles.
conclusionExisting assessments of stroke survivors' knowledge have considerable variability, limited validation, and inconsistent alignment with survivors' information needs. Developing standardised, validated, and patient-centred assessment tools that are tailored to stroke type and accessible across literacy levels is essential for advancing stroke education and supporting long-term recovery. These findings can inform policymakers in tailoring education efforts and designing interventions that directly address knowledge gaps across diverse stroke survivor populations. Future research should prioritise longitudinal evaluation of knowledge and its impact on clinical outcomes.
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.