Brodie M Sakakibara1, Scott A Lear2, Susan I Barr3, Oscar Benavente4, Charlie H Goldsmith5, Noah D Silverberg6, Jennifer Yao7, Janice J Eng8. 1. Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada; Rehabilitation Research Program, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 2. Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada; Division of Cardiology, Providence Health Care, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 3. Food, Nutrition & Health Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 4. Division of Neurology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 5. Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada; Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 6. Rehabilitation Research Program, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; GF Strong Rehabilitation Centre, Vancouver Coastal Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 7. Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; GF Strong Rehabilitation Centre, Vancouver Coastal Health, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 8. Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; Rehabilitation Research Program, Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Electronic address: janice.eng@ubc.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the systematic development of the Stroke Coach, a theory- and evidence-based intervention to improve control of lifestyle behavior risk factors in patients with stroke. DESIGN: Intervention development. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals who have had a stroke. INTERVENTIONS: We used intervention mapping to guide the development of the Stroke Coach. Intervention mapping is a systematic process used for intervention development and composed of steps that progress from the integration of theory and evidence to the organization of realistic strategies to facilitate the development of a practical intervention supported by empirical evidence. Social cognitive theory was the underlying premise for behavior change, whereas control theory methods were directed toward sustaining the changes to ensure long-term health benefits. Practical evidence-based strategies were linked to behavioral determinants to improve stroke risk factor control. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Not applicable. RESULTS: The Stroke Coach is a patient-centered, community-based, telehealth intervention to promote healthy lifestyles after stroke. Over 6 months, participants receive seven 30- to 60-minute telephone sessions with a lifestyle coach who provides education, facilitates motivation for lifestyle modification, and empowers participants to self-management their stroke risk factors. Participants also receive a self-management manual and a self-monitoring kit. CONCLUSIONS: Through the use of intervention mapping, we developed a theoretically sound and evidence-grounded intervention to improve risk factor control in patients with stroke. If empirical evaluation of the Stroke Coach produces positive results, the next step will be to develop an implementation intervention to ensure successful uptake and delivery of the program in community and outpatient settings.
OBJECTIVE: To describe the systematic development of the Stroke Coach, a theory- and evidence-based intervention to improve control of lifestyle behavior risk factors in patients with stroke. DESIGN: Intervention development. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals who have had a stroke. INTERVENTIONS: We used intervention mapping to guide the development of the Stroke Coach. Intervention mapping is a systematic process used for intervention development and composed of steps that progress from the integration of theory and evidence to the organization of realistic strategies to facilitate the development of a practical intervention supported by empirical evidence. Social cognitive theory was the underlying premise for behavior change, whereas control theory methods were directed toward sustaining the changes to ensure long-term health benefits. Practical evidence-based strategies were linked to behavioral determinants to improve stroke risk factor control. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Not applicable. RESULTS: The Stroke Coach is a patient-centered, community-based, telehealth intervention to promote healthy lifestyles after stroke. Over 6 months, participants receive seven 30- to 60-minute telephone sessions with a lifestyle coach who provides education, facilitates motivation for lifestyle modification, and empowers participants to self-management their stroke risk factors. Participants also receive a self-management manual and a self-monitoring kit. CONCLUSIONS: Through the use of intervention mapping, we developed a theoretically sound and evidence-grounded intervention to improve risk factor control in patients with stroke. If empirical evaluation of the Stroke Coach produces positive results, the next step will be to develop an implementation intervention to ensure successful uptake and delivery of the program in community and outpatient settings.
Authors: P M Rothwell; A J Coull; M F Giles; S C Howard; L E Silver; L M Bull; S A Gutnikov; P Edwards; D Mant; C M Sackley; A Farmer; P A G Sandercock; M S Dennis; C P Warlow; J M Bamford; P Anslow Journal: Lancet Date: 2004-06-12 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Linda Brewer; Lisa Mellon; Patricia Hall; Eamon Dolan; Frances Horgan; Emer Shelley; Anne Hickey; David Williams Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2015-10-23 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Aoife Stephenson; Sarah Howes; Paul J Murphy; Judith E Deutsch; Maria Stokes; Katy Pedlow; Suzanne M McDonough Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-11 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Brodie M Sakakibara; Scott A Lear; Susan I Barr; Oscar Benavente; Charlie H Goldsmith; Noah D Silverberg; Jennifer Yao; Janice J Eng Journal: Int J Stroke Date: 2017-09-04 Impact factor: 5.266
Authors: Paul Baker; Carol Coole; Avril Drummond; Sayeed Khan; Catriona McDaid; Catherine Hewitt; Lucksy Kottam; Sarah Ronaldson; Elizabeth Coleman; David A McDonald; Fiona Nouri; Melanie Narayanasamy; Iain McNamara; Judith Fitch; Louise Thomson; Gerry Richardson; Amar Rangan Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: James A Blumenthal; Patrick J Smith; Andrew Sherwood; Stephanie Mabe; Laurie Snyder; Courtney Frankel; Daphne C McKee; Natalie Hamilton; Francis J Keefe; Sheila Shearer; Jeanne Schwartz; Scott Palmer Journal: Transplant Direct Date: 2020-02-18