ArticleJMIR human factors2025
Clinician Perceptions of a Novel Multicomponent Digital Care Assistant and Support Program for People After Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack (CAPS) for the Secondary Prevention of Stroke: Qualitative Study.
Article in JMIR human factors, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Mobile Health Platform for Heart Failure Self-Management: Feasibility Study on Patient Engagement, Acceptance, and Potential Health Outcomes.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We co-designed the novel multicomponent CAPS (Care Assistant and support Program for people after Stroke or transient ischemic attack) to augment the secondary prevention of stroke. Objective: Following completion of a feasibility study, we sought feedback from Australian clinicians and service provider representatives (the potential deliverers of CAPS) regarding their perceptions of CAPS for secondary prevention and the pathways to real-world adoption. Methods: This was a qualitative descriptive study of clinicians and service provider representatives involved in the delivery of stroke care around Australia. A pragmatic convenience sample was obtained by contacting previous CAPS co-design study participants; leveraging professional networks (eg, LinkedIn); and distributing study flyers and newsletters via primary health care networks, general practitioner (GP) networks, and social media posts (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization's LinkedIn pages). Semistructured interviews and focus groups were conducted virtually with clinicians and representatives of the Stroke Foundation (Australia). Qualitative content analysis was undertaken. Results: Overall, 18 clinicians and 3 Stroke Foundation representatives participated from 5 Australian states, including medical specialists, GPs, nurses, and allied health professionals. We collected their perceptions of CAPS, categorized as potential benefits of the program for secondary prevention, and the considerations for facilitators and challenges to real-world program implementation. The perceived benefits of supporting self-management for patients and facilitating informed decision-making for clinicians were identified. Discussions regarding program implementation included program initiation and duration, patient support considerations, and workflow alignment, which involved consideration of the barriers and enablers to uptake within primary care practice and Stroke Foundation outreach support programs. Conclusions: There was support from participants for the potential of CAPS to improve the secondary prevention of stroke. However, approaches for addressing the challenges raised by participants, including further implementation and integration considerations, such as sustainability of the model of care, are likely required for CAPS to be successfully embedded within clinical settings.
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.