ArticleClinical rehabilitation2025
Tailored implementation of a behaviour change intervention for post-stroke physical activity: A mixed-methods feasibility study.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveTo explore the feasibility of tailored implementation of a stroke physical activity behaviour change intervention (Physical Activity Routines After Stroke (PARAS)) and the feasibility of the intervention.DesignFeasibility study applying mixed methods.SettingUK stroke services.ParticipantsFour stroke rehabilitation teams comprising 34 healthcare professionals.InterventionWe applied a tailored implementation process informed by the Integrated Theory-based Framework for Intervention Tailoring Strategies to the PARAS intervention. Teams each attended two facilitated workshops (face-to-face/hybrid/online) identifying barriers and facilitators (determinants) to PARAS implementation to enable development of tailored implementation plans. Plans were applied and reviewed.Main measuresFeasibility of the tailored implementation process and intervention was explored via analysis of online questionnaire responses and thematic analysis of workshop and review session content. Inductive analysis identified determinants to implementation plan completion and enabled mapping of promising implementation strategies and their operationalisation and intervention development needs.ResultsThirty-four healthcare professionals participated across four teams. The facilitated, tailored implementation process was deemed feasible. All teams reported partially achieving implementation plans. Factors influencing implementation plan success included: motivation; stakeholder involvement; leadership and planning; intervention delivery skills. Implementation strategies mapped to factors included: assess for readiness; build a coalition; identify champions; train for leadership; and develop an implementation plan and ongoing training. Intervention adaptations identified included intervention tailoring and digitising resources.ConclusionOur implementation process and the PARAS intervention were feasible with moderate amendments. Our findings enabled development of a model to support tailored implementation of PARAS and identified intervention development needs to guide future evaluation.
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.