Trial reportBMC health services research2026
Process evaluation of F@ce 2.0, a team-based, person-centred intervention for rehabilitation after stroke supported by ICT.
Trial report in BMC health services research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04351178 (F@ce 2.0 - Implementation and Evaluation of a Model for a Person-centred, Information and Communication Technology and Team Based Rehabilitation Intervention for People Who Have Had Stroke in Sweden), which is not on this 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.
F@ce 2.0 - Implementation and Evaluation of a Model for a Person-centred, Information and Communication Technology and Team Based Rehabilitation Intervention for People Who Have Had Stroke in Sweden
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRehabilitation after stroke is a complex process, and innovative solutions, including digital tools, have been suggested as way of meeting the challenge of limited access to services. F@ce 2.0 is a person-centred intervention for rehabilitation after stroke where goal achievement is supported by information and communication technology. Guidance for evaluation of complex interventions, such as that from the UK Medical Research Council (MRC), underlines the importance of evaluating not only the effects of an intervention but also process, such as its implementation in a clinical setting. The objective was therefore to study the implementation process of the F@ce 2.0 intervention for stroke survivors living at home as well as the interaction between the intervention and the implementation context.
methodsA process evaluation of the implementation of F@ce 2.0 was conducted, informed by the MRC guidance for process evaluations, utilising a convergent mixed methods design. Participants included stroke survivors (n = 39), rehabilitation team members (n = 53) and managers (n = 6). Data were collected through a web server, surveys and interviews. Descriptive statistics were used for quantitative analysis. Qualitative data were analysed using a deductive thematic approach based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.
resultsAnalysis revealed challenges in conducting research during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as limitations related to implementation planning in relation to the specific context. The reach of the intervention among stroke survivors was low, and fidelity issues were identified related to the teams' lack of readiness to deliver the intervention. Analysis of teams' perception of delivering the intervention revealed that they saw potential in using a structured instrument for person-centred goal setting and in goal reminders, but also a hesitation regarding the usability of the intervention for stroke survivors. Teams also expressed a need of further education in delivering the intervention.
conclusionsThe process evaluation showed that although rehabilitation teams recognized the potential of F@ce 2.0, implementation and reach were limited, largely due to insufficient contact with the teams for both support and monitoring. Earlier involvement of the rehabilitation teams would likely have helped identify educational needs and organizational conditions necessary for successful implementation.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04351178. Firs posted 2020-04-17. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04351178 .
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.