SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
A systematic review on using intervention mapping to guide behavioral interventions for improving stroke patient outcomes.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Functional recovery after stroke is substantially dependent on systematic, evidence-based behavioral interventions. Intervention Mapping (IM), as a structured framework for intervention development, has demonstrated favorable outcomes across various health domains. This systematic review had one primary aim to identify and characterize how the IM framework has been applied to develop behavioral interventions for stroke survivors. Moreover, we describe the core characteristics of IM-guided stroke behavioral interventions and evaluate the methodological reporting quality of IM application. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases for relevant literature published up to March 20, 2026. Studies employing IM to guide the development of behavioral interventions for stroke survivors were included, irrespective of study design. The characteristics of intervention design, implementation processes, methodological quality, and outcome evaluations were synthesized and analyzed. Results: Nine studies were included, with overall methodological quality ratings ranging from "moderate" to "strong." Three patterns of IM application were identified: (1) full application of all six steps (4/9); (2) partial application focusing on the development phase (Steps 1-4, 4/9); and (3) deep integration with co-design methodologies (2/9). All interventions integrated behavior change theories and exhibited multi-level, multi-component, and contextually tailored characteristics. Delivery formats included face-to-face counseling, telehealth coaching, digital toolkits, and video-based education. Six studies reported feasibility evaluations; interventions demonstrated high acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility, with preliminary signals of improved knowledge, enhanced self-efficacy, and positive behavioral intentions. No studies reported long-term hard clinical outcomes. All studies produced logic models and intervention manuals; however, reporting transparency regarding operational details of Step 2 (matrices of change objectives) and Step 3 (theory-based methods and practical strategies) was suboptimal in some studies, constraining methodological replicability. Conclusion: IM provides a viable structured framework for the systematic development and implementation of behavioral interventions in stroke rehabilitation, contributing to enhanced theoretical grounding, contextual adaptability, and implementation rigor. Future research should deepen the internalization of IM's technical core, rigorously adhere to reporting standards, and advance mature interventions into large-sample, long-term, multi-center efficacy trials to achieve systematic orchestration across the intervention science continuum-from development to clinical translation. Systematic review registration: The Systematic Review was registered in INPLASY platform (INPLASY202630004), the website was: https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2026-3-0004/.
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.