ArticleVascular health and risk management2026
Refining the Stroke Risk Screening Scales (SRSS) Through Two-Round Cognitive Interviews with Stroke Survivors and Healthcare Providers in Thailand.
Article in Vascular health and risk management, 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: Accurate stroke risk screening requires instruments that are both clinically valid and easily understood by end users. Although the Stroke Risk Screening Scales (SRSS) demonstrated strong content validity, challenges related to item interpretation and response processes may compromise measurement accuracy. This study aimed to examine these barriers and identify strategies to enhance the clarity, accuracy, and usability of the SRSS. Methods: A qualitative cognitive interviewing approach was conducted with 30 purposively sampled participants, including 15 individuals with stroke and 15 healthcare providers. Each participant completed two interview rounds, with the same 30 participants re-interviewed in Round 2 (conducted within one month of Round 1) to confirm whether revisions made after Round 1 addressed the barriers identified, yielding a total of 60 interviews. Data were collected using a semi-structured verbal probing guide to explore participants' understanding, reasoning, and response processes across 30 SRSS items. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using inductive thematic analysis based on Braun and Clarke's framework. Rigor was ensured through independent coding, iterative codebook development, triangulation, and maintenance of an audit trail. Results: Two overarching themes emerged: (1) interpretation and response barriers, including technical terminology, ambiguous measurement units, recall difficulties, misaligned response options, lack of skip logic, and cultural mismatches; and (2) evidence-based refinement strategies to improve usability. Participants recommended simplifying terminology, incorporating descriptive examples, aligning question stems with response options, implementing skip logic, and standardizing measurement units and thresholds. These findings highlighted critical gaps between clinical terminology and lay understanding that may affect response accuracy. Conclusion: Cognitive interviewing identified key interpretive and structural limitations in the SRSS and provided actionable, user-informed strategies for refinement. These findings offer preliminary response-process evidence supporting the interpretability and usability of the SRSS among stroke survivors and healthcare providers, and highlight the importance of user-centered pre-testing in the development of screening tools for diverse populations. Further psychometric evaluation in larger and more diverse samples is needed to establish the instrument's reliability, validity, and clinical applicability.
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.