Trial reportArchives of physical medicine and rehabilitation2026
Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial of an Enhanced Rehabilitation Transition Program for Stroke Survivors.
Trial report in Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transitional care interventions and outcome measures in stroke rehabilitation: a scoping review.Disability and rehabilitation · 2026Review
- Functional Cognitive Rehabilitation as a Primer to Activity-Based Stroke Telerehabilitation: Feasibility, Acceptability, and Engagement.Brain sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo fully describe the key elements for implementation of the Community Participation Transition after Stroke (COMPASS) intervention for stroke survivors returning home from inpatient rehabilitation (IR) using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance framework.
designProcess evaluation of a randomized controlled trial of the COMPASS intervention.
settingIR and participants' homes.
participantsOne hundred eighty-five (N=185) stroke survivors who were 50 years of age or older, experienced an acute ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage, were independent in activities of daily living before their stroke, and planned to discharge home from IR.
interventionsParticipants were randomized to receive the COMPASS intervention (home modifications and strategy training, n=85) or attentional control (AC; stroke education, n=100). Both groups received 4 visits in the home.
main outcome measuresComponents of the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance framework.
resultsIn this study, 51.8% of eligible stroke survivors participated. More COMPASS participants completed the intervention than AC participants (94.1% vs 75.0%; reach). COMPASS participants experienced greater improvements in self-rated performance and satisfaction and barrier severity than AC participants at 12-month follow-up (effectiveness). Approximately 89% of intervention components were implemented in an average of 5.5 postdischarge home visits (average, 289min; SD=172). An average of 9.9 home modifications/recommendations was made per participant, and the median cost of adaptive equipment and contractor labor and materials was $544 ($275-$754; implementation). Adherence to home modifications at 12 months was 82.4% (SD=0.24; maintenance).
conclusionsCOMPASS had good reach and was effective in improving stroke survivors' self-rated performance and satisfaction and in reducing environmental barriers to daily activities. COMPASS was implemented with fidelity and low cost in a sample of stroke survivors.
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.