Mixed methods evaluation to explore participant experiences of a pilot randomized trial to facilitate self-management of people living with stroke: Inspiring virtual enabled resources following vascular events (iVERVE)

Building Bridges between People with Stroke, Families, and Health Professionals: Development of a Blended Care Program for Self-Management

Evidence-informed interventions for stroke self-management support can influence functional capability and social participation. People with stroke should be offered self-management support after hospital discharge. However, in Portugal, there are no known programs of this nature. This study aimed to develop a person-centered and tailored blended care program for post-stroke self-management, taking into account the existing evidence-informed interventions and the perspectives of Portuguese people with stroke, caregivers, and health professionals. An exploratory sequential mixed methods approach was used, including qualitative methods during stakeholder consultation (stage 1) and co-production (stage 2) and quantitative assessment during prototyping (stage 3). After ethical approval, recruitment occurred in three health units. Results from a literature search led to the adaptation of the Bridges Stroke Self-Management Program. In stage one, 47 participants were interviewed, with two themes emerging: (i) Personalized support and (ii) Building Bridges through small steps. In stage two, the ComVida program was developed, combining in-person and digital approaches, supported by a workbook and a mobile app. In stage three, 56 participants evaluated prototypes, demonstrating a strong level of quality. Understandability and actionability of the developed tools obtained high scores (91-100%). The app also showed good usability (A-grade) and high levels of recommendation (5 stars).

A Scoping Review of mHealth Interventions for Secondary Prevention of Stroke: Implications for Policy and Practice

Secondary prevention is a major priority for those living with stroke and may be improved through the use of mobile Health (mHealth) interventions. While evidence for the effectiveness of mHealth interventions for secondary prevention of stroke is growing, little attention has been given to the translation of these interventions into real-world use. In this review, we aimed to provide an update on the effectiveness of mHealth interventions for secondary prevention of stroke, and investigate their translation into real-world use. Four electronic databases and the gray literature were searched for randomized controlled trials of mHealth interventions for secondary prevention of stroke published between 2010 and 2023. Qualitative and mixed-methods evaluations of the trials were also included. Data were extracted regarding study design, population, mHealth technology involved, the intervention, and outcomes. Principal researchers from these trials were also contacted to obtain further translational information. From 1151 records, 13 randomized controlled trials and 4 evaluations were identified; sample sizes varied widely (median, 56; range, 24-4298). Short message service messages (9/13) and smartphone applications (6/13) were the main technologies used to deliver interventions. Primary outcomes of feasibility of the intervention were achieved in 4 trials, and primary outcomes of changes in risk factors, lifestyle behaviors, and adherence to medication improved in 6 trials. Only 1 trial had a hard end point (ie, stroke recurrence) as a primary outcome, and no significant differences were observed between groups. There was evidence for only 1 intervention being successfully translated into real-world use. Further evidence is required on the clinical effectiveness of mHealth interventions for preventing recurrent stroke, and the associated delivery costs and cost-effectiveness, before adoption into real-world settings.

Care Transition Interventions to Improve Stroke Outcomes: Evidence Gaps in Underserved and Minority Populations

In many countries hospital length of stay after an acute stroke admission is typically just a few days, therefore, most of a person's recovery from stroke occurs in the community. Care transitions, which occur when there is a change in, or handoff between 2 different care settings or providers, represent an especially vulnerable period for patients and caregivers. For some patients with stroke the return home is associated with substantial practical, psychosocial, and health-related challenges leading to substantial burden for the individual and caregiver. Underserved and minority populations, because of their exposure to poor environmental, social, and economic conditions, as well as structural racism and discrimination, are especially vulnerable to the problems of complicated care transitions which in turn, can negatively impact stroke recovery. Overall, there remain significant unanswered questions about how to promote optimal recovery in the post-acute care period, particularly for those from underserved communities. Evidence is limited on how best to support patients after they have returned home where they are required to navigate the chronic stages of stroke with little direct support from health professionals.

A mixed-methods feasibility study of a new digital health support package for people after stroke: the Recovery-focused Community support to Avoid readmissions and improve Participation after Stroke (ReCAPS) intervention

Background

Evidence for digital health programmes to support people living with stroke is growing. We assessed the feasibility of a protocol and procedures for the Recovery-focused Community support to Avoid readmissions and improve Participation after Stroke (ReCAPS) trial.

Methods

We conducted a mixed-method feasibility study. Participants with acute stroke were recruited from three hospitals (Melbourne, Australia). Eligibility: Adults with stroke discharged from hospital to home within 10 days, modified Rankin Score 0–4 and prior use of Short Message System (SMS)/email. While in hospital, recruited participants contributed to structured person-centred goal setting and completed baseline surveys including self-management skills and health-related quality of life. Participants were randomised 7–14 days after discharge via REDCap® (1:1 allocation). Following randomisation, the intervention group received a 12-week programme of personalised electronic support messages (average 66 messages sent by SMS or email) aligned with their goals. The control group received six electronic administrative messages. Feasibility outcomes included the following: number of patients screened and recruited, study retainment, completion of outcome measures and acceptability of the ReCAPS intervention and trial procedures (e.g. participant satisfaction survey, clinician interviews). Protocol fidelity outcomes included number of goals developed (and quality), electronic messages delivered, stop messages received and engagement with messages. We undertook inductive thematic analysis of interview/open-text survey data and descriptive analysis of closed survey questions.

Results

Between November 2018 and October 2019, 312 patients were screened; 37/105 (35%) eligible patients provided consent (mean age 61 years; 32% female); 33 were randomised (17 to intervention). Overall, 29 (88%) participants completed the12-week outcome assessments with 12 (41%) completed assessments in the allocated timeframe and 16 also completing the satisfaction survey (intervention=10). Overall, trial participants felt that the study was worthwhile and most would recommend it to others. Six clinicians participated in one of three focus group interviews; while they reported that the trial and the process of goal setting were acceptable, they raised concerns regarding the additional time required to personalise goals.

Conclusion

The study protocol and procedures were feasible with acceptable retention of participants. Consent and goal personalisation procedures should be centralised for the phase III trial to reduce the burden on hospital clinicians.

Trial registration

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618001468213 (date 31/08/2018); Universal Trial Number: U1111-1206-7237