Literature DB >> 35058265

Supported self-management in community stroke rehabilitation: what is it and how does it work? A protocol for a realist evaluation study.

Lisa Kidd1, Julie Duncan Millar2, Helen Mason3, Terry Quinn4, Katie I Gallacher5, Fiona Jones6, Rebecca J Fisher7, Therese Lebedis8,9, Mark Barber9,10, Katrina Brennan9,11, Mark Smith9,12.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: A growing evidence base demonstrates the effectiveness of supported self-management in stroke for stroke survivors and their families. However, there is significant variation in its implementation in community stroke care and little understanding about how supported self-management works and is delivered across different settings, models used and contexts of community stroke rehabilitation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using a mixed method, realist approach across two phases, this protocol describes a study on community-based supported self-management. The aim is to identify the mechanisms and outcomes of supported self-management in stroke and to understand how supported self-management is implemented in different contexts of community stroke rehabilitation. Phase 1 involves (1) a realist synthesis, (2) a scoping and mapping of current community rehabilitation settings and (3) a Q-methodology study to develop initial programme theories about how community-based supported self-management works, for whom and in what contexts. Phase 2 involves realist informed interviews/focus groups with stroke survivors, community rehabilitation practitioners and team managers from across Scotland to test and refine programme theories and an explanatory model for how supported self-management works across different contexts of community-based stroke rehabilitation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval and R&D approvals have been granted from East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee (REC reference number: 19/ES/0055) and participating NHS boards. An understanding of how, for whom and in what contexts community-based supported self-management works will help to strengthen its delivery in practice. Such an understanding will enable the design of context-specific recommendations for policy and practice that genuinely reflect the challenges in implementing supported self-management in community stroke care. Results will be disseminated to clinical partners working in community stroke rehabilitation, stroke survivors and families and to policymakers and third sector partners involved in the provision of long-term support for people affected by stroke. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020166208. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Entities:  

Keywords:  organisation of health services; rehabilitation medicine; stroke

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35058265      PMCID: PMC8783824          DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055491

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ Open        ISSN: 2044-6055            Impact factor:   2.692


  28 in total

Review 1.  Self-efficacy and self-management after stroke: a systematic review.

Authors:  Fiona Jones; Afsane Riazi
Journal:  Disabil Rehabil       Date:  2010-08-27       Impact factor: 3.033

2.  Q methodology in health economics.

Authors:  Rachel Baker; Carl Thompson; Russell Mannion
Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy       Date:  2006-01

Review 3.  Post-stroke self-management interventions: a systematic review of effectiveness and investigation of the inclusion of stroke survivors with aphasia.

Authors:  Faye Wray; David Clarke; Anne Forster
Journal:  Disabil Rehabil       Date:  2017-03-08       Impact factor: 3.033

Review 4.  Self-Management Support Interventions for Stroke Survivors: A Systematic Meta-Review.

Authors:  Hannah L Parke; Eleni Epiphaniou; Gemma Pearce; Stephanie J C Taylor; Aziz Sheikh; Chris J Griffiths; Trish Greenhalgh; Hilary Pinnock
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-23       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Self-management develops through doing of everyday activities-a longitudinal qualitative study of stroke survivors during two years post-stroke.

Authors:  Ton Satink; Staffan Josephsson; Jana Zajec; Edith H C Cup; Bert J M de Swart; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden
Journal:  BMC Neurol       Date:  2016-11-15       Impact factor: 2.474

6.  A conceptual model of treatment burden and patient capacity in stroke.

Authors:  Katie I Gallacher; Carl R May; Peter Langhorne; Frances S Mair
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2018-01-09       Impact factor: 2.497

7.  How is rehabilitation with and without an integrated self-management approach perceived by UK community-dwelling stroke survivors? A qualitative process evaluation to explore implementation and contextual variations.

Authors:  Fiona Jones; Christopher McKevitt; Afsane Riazi; Matthew Liston
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-04-03       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses.

Authors:  Geoff Wong; Trish Greenhalgh; Gill Westhorp; Jeanette Buckingham; Ray Pawson
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2013-01-29       Impact factor: 8.775

9.  RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations.

Authors:  Geoff Wong; Gill Westhorp; Ana Manzano; Joanne Greenhalgh; Justin Jagosh; Trish Greenhalgh
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2016-06-24       Impact factor: 8.775

10.  GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research.

Authors:  S Staniszewska; J Brett; I Simera; K Seers; C Mockford; S Goodlad; D G Altman; D Moher; R Barber; S Denegri; A Entwistle; P Littlejohns; C Morris; R Suleman; V Thomas; C Tysall
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2017-08-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.