ArticlePloS one2025
Clear tracks or missed connections? A qualitative study exploring how interest-holder perceptions of purpose shape the implementation and experience of the six-month review for stroke survivors.
Article in PloS one, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe six-month review (6MR) for stroke survivors is recommended in clinical guidelines. However, the purpose of the review lacks clarity and has been implemented in variable ways. This study aims to better understand the purpose of the 6MR by comparing and contrasting the perspectives of different interest-holders, and to identify what impact this might have on the functioning of services.
methodThis paper reports a qualitative analysis drawn from a multiple case study project. Participants were recruited from three interest-holder groups: Service Providers (staff members), Service Influencers (managers, commissioners and regional leaders), and Service Users (stroke survivors and their carers). Data were collected from semi-structured interviews, clinical observations, and documentary evidence. Interest-holder groups were analysed separately using reflexive thematic analysis. Themes were then compared across interest-holder groups.
resultsThirty-six participants were recruited across three interest-holder groups: Service Providers (n = 8), Service Influencers (n = 6), and Service Users (n = 22). Seven themes were identified: two each for Service Providers and Service Influencers, and three for Service Users. Service providers emphasised a desire to deliver person-centred care but were often constrained by systemic pressures. Service influencers saw the review primarily as a mechanism for population-level data collection and service planning, while also acting as a safety net to capture unmet or evolving needs. Service users typically viewed the review as a routine check-up rather than a pivotal moment in the pathway. For some, it marked the end of formal support while others valued the sense of reassurance and validation it provided.
conclusionInterest-holders have differing views on the purpose of the 6MR, with tensions emerging between system-level priorities and person-centred care. Greater clarity on the function of the 6MR may help reduce unwarranted variation in its implementation and ensure it delivers meaningful value to all involved.
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.