ArticleBMC health services research2026
Overcoming barriers and embedding processes to sustainably deliver high-dose post-stroke aphasia rehabilitation: a mixed methods longitudinal process evaluation.
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. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDelivering evidence-based stroke rehabilitation in clinical practice is challenging due to intervention complexity and healthcare system factors. The Comprehensive High-dose Aphasia Treatment (CHAT) program incorporates best-practice principles for aphasia rehabilitation, but uptake within healthcare services is limited. A multifaceted implementation strategy was developed to support CHAT delivery as part of a single-site 3-year pre-post hybrid type II implementation-effectiveness study. This process evaluation sought to determine the influence of the implementation strategy and organisational context, and to identify mechanisms of impact on the outcomes of the complex intervention.
methodsA longitudinal mixed methods process evaluation was conducted over three years, with data collected at 3-6-month intervals to capture process and organisational changes. Data were collected through clinician interviews and focus groups, behaviour-change surveys, training logs, observational checklists, and questionnaires. Qualitative data was analysed using the Framework Method, then triangulated with quantitative and observational data, informed by the Medical Research Council (MRC) Process Evaluation Framework for Complex Interventions. A logic model was developed to support conceptual linkage of the complex interrelationships among factors impacting implementation success.
resultsTwenty-four clinicians participated, and CHAT was delivered to 67 participants with aphasia. All implementation strategy components were delivered as intended, and CHAT was successfully implemented. Many contextual barriers identified in the first year were addressed as processes were streamlined, mediated by organisational responsiveness and commitment, including allocation of clinical positions. Key mechanisms of ‘cognitive overload and clinician fatigue’ were counteracted by clinicians’ sense of ‘professional recognition and pride’ at being involved in the program, and their ‘immersion in CHAT as part of a team’. Implementation support needs decreased over time and sustainment plans were highlighted.
conclusionThis study highlights benefits of evaluating implementation processes over time to understand how adaptions occur in response to challenges, and the importance of organisational and leadership commitment. Though implementation was challenging, processes to mitigate barriers and support clinicians led to positive implementation outcomes. Our findings show the potential for complex interventions to be sustainably embedded within clinical services, providing key considerations to inform future implementation of intensive aphasia services and contributing to global efforts to improve rehabilitation services. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.