Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41742115›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2026

Strengths, limitations, and way forward of home-based rehabilitation practices after stroke: a scoping review.

Luca Oppici, Ann Marie Hestetun-Mandrup, Matheus M Pacheco, Emilie Halmrast Simonsen, Arve Opheim, Lena Rafsten, Marianne Løvstad, Guna Bērziņa, Katharina S Sunnerhagen, James R Rudd

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Luca OppiciThe Department of Teacher Education and Outdoor Studies, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, 0863, Norway. lucao@nih.no.
Ann Marie Hestetun-MandrupCenter for Research and Education, Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital, Nesoddtangen, 1450, Norway.
Matheus M PachecoUniversity of São Paulo, School of Physical Education and Sport, São Paulo, Brazil.
Emilie Halmrast SimonsenThe Department of Teacher Education and Outdoor Studies, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, 0863, Norway.
Arve OpheimCenter for Research and Education, Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital, Nesoddtangen, 1450, Norway.
Lena RafstenDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience and Rehabilitation Medicine, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Marianne LøvstadCenter for Research and Education, Sunnaas Rehabilitation Hospital, Nesoddtangen, 1450, Norway.
Guna BērziņaDepartment of Rehabilitation, Faculty of Health and Sport Sciences, Riga Stradiņš University, Riga, Latvia.
Katharina S SunnerhagenDepartment of Clinical Neuroscience and Rehabilitation Medicine, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden.
James R RuddThe Department of Teacher Education and Outdoor Studies, Norwegian School of Sport Sciences, Oslo, 0863, Norway. jamesr@nih.no.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHome-based motor rehabilitation after stroke has a great potential to promote task-specific and context-specific training in a familiar, functionally rich context, supporting more personalised, engaging, and adaptable rehabilitation experiences. This review aims to map existing practices in home-based motor rehabilitation after stroke and critically examine whether this potential is fully utilized and identify strengths and limitations. It further explores how healthcare professionals can optimise their planning and delivery of interventions.

methodsA scoping review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Comprehensive searches were conducted in 5 databases: PubMed, CINAHL, MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened the studies for eligibility and extracted characteristics of each study into a data charting table.

resultsSixty-six studies met the inclusion criteria. The results highlighted a consistent implementation of task-specific exercises but limited implementation of context-specific stimuli, inadequate training dosage, and limited contextual adaptation to the home environment. Further, instructional methods tended to be overly prescriptive, co-design strategies applied inconsistently, and caregiver engagement often underutilised.

conclusionsExisting practices do not fully utilize the potential of home-based rehabilitation. We argue clinical work should prioritise early-phase interventions with adequate intensity and develop pedagogical frameworks to guide home modifications and instructional methods. The framework should support progressive and engaging practice, and fully adopt co-designed, person-centred approaches that meaningfully involve family caregivers.

Indexed as

Home Care ServicesStroke RehabilitationHumansStrokeContext-specificHome-basedMotor rehabilitationPedagogyPhysiotherapyStrokeTask-specificTherapy

Identifiers

PMID41742115
PMCPMC13040734

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.