Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Background:

Impactful, evidence-based solutions in surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation for stroke survivors are required to address the high global burden of stroke. Patient and public involvement (PPI), where patients, their families, and the public are actively involved as research partners, enhances the relevance, credibility, and impact of stroke-related research.

Aims:

This scoping review, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Scoping Review guidelines, aims to identify and summarize how PPI is currently implemented and reported in empirical stroke research using a participatory approach.

Summary of review:

A comprehensive search strategy was developed and implemented across Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsynchINFO, and Cochrane electronic databases, supplemented by gray literature searches. Empirical stroke research articles in the English language, published from 2014 up to 2023, and documenting PPI activity were included. Of the 18,143 original articles identified, 2824 full-text manuscripts matching from this time window were screened. Only 2% (n = 72) of these directly reported embedded PPI activity in empirical research. The majority were qualitative in design (60%) and conducted in high-income countries (96%). Only one included study originated from a developing country, where the burden of stroke is highest. Most studies (94%) provided some information about the activities carried out with their PPI partners, mainly centered on the study design (57%) and management (64%), with only 4% of studies integrating PPI across all research cycle phases from funding application to dissemination. When studies were examined for compliance with the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP) short-form checklist, only 11% of included studies were 100% compliant. Twenty-one studies (29%) reported barriers and facilitators to including PPI in stroke research. Organization, authentic partnership, and experienced PPI representatives were common facilitators and identified barriers reflected concerns around adequate funding, time required, and diversity in perspectives. A positive reporting bias for PPI impact was observed, summarized as keeping the patient perspective central to the research process, improved care of study participants, validation of study findings, and improved communication/lay-summaries of complex research concepts.

Conclusions:

PPI is underutilized and inconsistently reported in current empirical stroke research. PPI must become more widely adopted, notably in low- and middle-income countries. Consensus-driven standards for inclusion of PPI by funding organizations and publishers are required to support its widespread adoption.

Keywords

Patient and public involvement patient engagement patient participation stakeholder involvement stroke review

Introduction

Evidence-based solutions and active involvement of all invested parties is recommended in optimal stroke care.¹ Patient and public involvement (PPI) and/or engagement, often defined as research conducted “with” or “by” members of the public rather than “on,” “about,” or “for” them,^2
–4 actively engages patients, their families, and the public as co-researchers to make the research more relevant, credible, and impactful.^2,5
–9 While often confused with qualitative research or used interchangeably with co-design and participatory action research (where power is also redistributed between citizens and researchers), PPI partners are not study participants.¹⁰

Emergent PPI issues in research include inconsistent reporting, poor conceptualization, and limited information on context, processes, and impact provided.^11
–13 It has been contended that measuring PPI impact may not be possible and risks missing the intrinsic value of PPI in and of itself.^14,15 However, existing evidence supports PPI as positively impacting research design and delivery and as being clinically impactful at the level of the individual in healthcare research. Scoping reviews in pre-clinical research, cancer, dementia, orthopedic, and occupational therapy populations identify limited formal evaluation of PPI and mostly anecdotal evidence supporting improved research relevance, research design, and research ethics.^16
–21 Standards for reporting PPI in research, for example, the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP), and checklists have been developed to improve the quality of reported PPI and ensure consistency across the international literature.^8,22

Stroke research has grown exponentially.²³ For example, the number of studies indexed under stroke in PubMed in 2020 was five times greater than that in 2010.²⁴ It is unknown whether adoption of PPI in stroke research has kept pace with this growth. Therefore, this scoping review aims to identify PPI uptake in empirical stroke research, summarize the available literature on how PPI is currently being implemented and reported, and identify any gaps. This scoping review actively involves a stroke survivor as a research partner, allowing their say in how this research is undertaken and providing unique insights.²⁵

Methods

Design

As the extent and nature of the phenomenon under review remains largely unknown, a scoping review was conducted.²⁶ Its purpose was to clarify the concept of PPI in the stroke literature; identify and map key characteristics or factors related to this concept and identify and analyze gaps in this emergent topic.²⁷ This review followed published scoping review guidelines,^28
–30 adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) extended guidelines and checklist for scoping reviews.^29,31 The protocol was co-produced with a PPI partner and pre-published.³²

Identifying the research question

The overarching review question simply asks: What PPI activities are conducted and reported in stroke research? Included articles were interrogated with the following questions:

a) What types of stroke research utilize PPI?

b) How is PPI in stroke research reported?

c) What is the profile of PPI participants involved in stroke research, including representation of stroke-related disabilities?

d) Where in the research cycle is PPI being used?

e) What barriers and facilitators to PPI in stroke research are documented?

f) What impact from PPI activities is documented?

Population, concept, and context (PCC) of the scoping review

The PCC structure helped define the review,²⁸ as per the published protocol:³²

a) Population: individuals with lived experience of stroke, including stroke survivors, carers, and family members.

b) Concept: PPI as described.^2,3

c) Context: empirical stroke research.¹

Search strategy and inclusion/exclusion criteria

A comprehensive PCC search strategy was developed with a library liaison officer. Electronic databases, searched to January 2023, included PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. Gray literature databases (Leanus, OpenGrey, and relevant stroke organizational websites) were searched for additional relevant research. A sample search strategy is provided (Supplemental file 1).

Inclusion criteria comprised:

a) Studies published from 2014 onwards. This criterion was imposed based on the volume of papers returned during searches from database inception and the clear cutoff timepoint provided by the first PPI in research guideline publication;

b) Empirical stroke research including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods and, where directly referenced in the empirical studies, associated published consultation/PPI processes;

c) English language publications;

d) Studies documenting PPI activity/initiatives fitting the principles of PPI in research,^2,3 irrespective of terminology.

Exclusion criteria:

a) Studies that did not explicitly involve PPI partners;

b) Studies reporting mixed populations or conditions other than stroke;

c) Publications that did produce original empirical data (e.g., editorials, commentary pieces) and conference abstracts;

d) Studies mistakenly reporting PPI activity: where the people with lived experience of stroke were study participants, not co-researchers.

Screening process

Identified studies were collated (duplicates removed) in Covidence review software and screened independently by title and abstract by two reviewers, drawn from a bank of reviewers (OL, PCP, RG, AR, LMC, POB, DM, CF, CDF). A conservative approach was taken whereby if the study met the empirical stroke research criterion, but PPI was not mentioned in the abstract, it progressed to full-text review. Full-text screening was independently conducted by two reviewers. A publication date cutoff from 2014 onwards was imposed at this stage. Conflicts arising between reviewers were resolved through wider group discussions (OL, PCP, CF, CDF).

Extracting and charting the data

A data extraction pro forma was developed for charting and extracting data,²⁸ aligned to the research questions. Study design was considered across the continuum from descriptive to exploratory to explanatory research as defined by Portney (2020).³³ PPI activity was staged according to the research cycle framework³ and reporting of PPI activity checked against GRIPP2 short-form checklist¹¹ mandatory items. Two researchers (PCP and CF) independently extracted data items to ensure consistency. Per scoping review guidelines, study quality was not formally assessed.²⁸

Data synthesis

Extracted data were tabulated under predefined headings, providing a summary of the primary studies. Adherence to reporting guidelines was collated in tabular format. Narrative and graphical syntheses were next conducted, identifying the type and geographical representation of stroke research using PPI; the profile of PPI participants; where in the research cycle PPI was included;³ and barriers and facilitators to PPI and its impact in stroke research.¹¹

Results

Figure 1 details article retrieval, screening, and inclusion stages. From n = 18,143, unique studies identified across the databases from inception to January 2023, n = 3874, were eligible for full review (n = 2824 from 2014 onward). Only 2% (n = 72) of publications from 2014 onwards met the inclusion criteria.^34
–105 The included studies reporting PPI activity originated from high-income countries: United Kingdom^{35,37,38,40,41,46
–48,52,55
–58,60,62,65,68,71,72,78
–80,83,84,86,87,89,91
–96,100
–103} (n = 37, 52%), Ireland^{50,64,75
–77} (n = 5, 8%), United States^{36,39,51,59,104} (n = 5, 8%), Australia^44,74,90,99 (n = 4, 6%), Canada^67,70,81 (n = 3, 4%), Germany^43,63,85 (n = 3, 4%), Sweden^53,61,66 (n = 3, 4%), Norway^42,97 (n = 2, 3%), Belgium⁴⁹ (n = 1, 1%), Cyprus⁴⁵ (n = 1, 1%), Netherlands⁸⁸ (n = 1, 1%), Portugal⁹⁸ (n = 1, 1%), and New Zealand⁵⁴ (n = 1, 1%), higher-middle-income countries like China^69,73,105 (n = 1, 1%) and Malaysia³⁴ (n = 3, 4%), and one lower-middle-income country Bangladesh⁸² (n = 1, 1%; Figure 2).

Figure 1.

PRISMA flow chart depicting search results and study selection.

Figure 2.

Global heatmap of publications with PPI in empirical stroke research.

A detailed table summarizing all included studies is available (Supplementary file 2), with a narrative summary addressing the review question provided below.

Types of stroke research utilizing PPI

Descriptive research was most represented (qualitative n = 43; survey n = 10). Exploratory research designs identified included cohort (n = 4), methodological (n = 12), and correlational/predictive (n = 1) studies. Explanatory research, identified in six studies, described pragmatic clinical (n = 4), randomized control (n = 1), and quasi-experimental (n = 1) trials. Three studies synthesized existing data.

PPI reporting in stroke research

Only 13% (n = 9) of manuscripts included a definition of their PPI concept. A greater percentage (67%; n = 48) detailed the PPI activities undertaken. The included studies’ compliance with the GRIPP2¹¹ short-form checklist items for reporting PPI are detailed (Supplementary file 3). Five studies (7%) failed to report any items.^{44,57,58,70,72} One study (1%) cited the GRIPP2 checklist, eight studies (11%) demonstrated 100% compliance with all checklist items (mandating both positive and negative discussion and reflection items), and 25 studies (35%) partially reported all five checklist items. Across all studies, the aims (n = 65, 90%) and methods (n = 65, 90%) checklist items were most consistently reported. Notably, many studies (57%) failed to critically reflect on their PPI activities.

Profile of PPI participants involved in stroke research

All studies provided information whereby PPI representation could be identified; 64% (n = 46) reported information about the profile of their PPI partners, primarily sex and/or age, with one study providing ethnicity. Where the number of PPI partners across the studies was reported, n = 285 were people with stroke (ages ranging from 32 to 91 years and time from stroke between 2 and 12 years); n = 44 were family members/carers; and n = 46 studies referenced public representatives/stroke support organizations. Stroke-related disability, where reported, reflected the research topic: n = 15 (21%) reported aphasia; n = 3 (4%) visual impairment; n = 3 (4%) cognitive difficulties; n = 1 (1%) mood issues; n = 1 (1%) motor weakness unspecified; and n = 1 (1%) upper-limb weakness. No study profiled wheelchair-use or mobility issues.

PPI across the research cycle

Sixty-eight studies (94%) provided information about their PPI activities, summarized in Figure 3 under the published National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) PPI research phases. Three studies (4%) integrated PPI across all research phases.^37,98,104 The majority included PPI in undertaking/managing research (n = 46, 64%) and study design (n = 41, 57%). Five studies (7%) reported PPI contributions in the acknowledgment section or named a PPI co-author without elaboration,^{44,57,58,70,72} meaning activities/contributions to research cycle stages could not be identified.

Figure 3.

Frequency of reported PPI in empirical stroke across the research cycle stages.

Documented barriers and facilitators to PPI in stroke research

Only 29% of studies (n = 21) reported facilitators and/or barriers to PPI integration in their research. The most frequently reported facilitator was well-organized PPI meetings, alongside aspects including trained/experienced PPI partners and authentic partnership (Figure 4(a)). Barriers to PPI in stroke research primarily reflected funding, limited PPI diversity, and time constraints (Figure 4(b)).

Figure 4.

(a) Frequency of facilitators and (b) barriers to PPI reported in empirical stroke research.

Documented impacts of PPI activities

Of the studies (n = 40, 56%) reporting impact (Supplementary file 2), only positive items were documented including that the insights provided by PPI representatives improved the care of study participants, helped validate findings, kept patient perspectives central to the research process, and improved communication/lay-summaries of complex concepts.

Discussion

This scoping review, conducted with its primary aim to clarify the concept of PPI in empirical stroke research,²⁷ identifies poor uptake and reporting of PPI in stroke despite PPI being a well-supported research concept for over 20 years.^3,106
–112 Only 2% of articles reviewed reported PPI activity. The need for wider education in stroke research about PPI and facilitation of PPI activities in future stroke research is evident, alongside gaps identified in current PPI practices. PPI, where reported in stroke research, was feasible to embed in descriptive, exploratory, explanatory, and synthesis methods.

The United Kingdom dominates published PPI-embedded stroke research, as identified in previous scoping reviews addressing PPI.^17,18,113 Results likely reflect the countries where policy-driven initiatives have promoted PPI in healthcare.^3,107
–111 All studies included in this review, with one exception, were conducted in developed countries. Results further emphasize the need for widespread support of PPI around the world, particularly in middle- and low-income countries, where 90% of all stroke-related deaths and the stroke burden (e.g. higher disability-adjusted life years)¹¹⁴ are concentrated.

Clinical trials alongside implementation science address efficacy and effectiveness of interventions. These make a substantial contribution to evidence-based care³³ and are most likely to benefit from PPI.¹¹⁵ Only six clinical trials in stroke (8%) were included in this review, signaling a lack of PPI contribution to current high-level stroke research. Furthermore, four of these failed to sufficiently detail their PPI activities (see Supplemental Table 2). PPI in clinical trials can include research priority setting, study design (including selection of outcomes), as well as dissemination and implementation of trial findings.^116
–118 Evidence identifies PPI inclusion can improve recruitment and retention and increase the uptake of research findings by better meeting healthcare consumers’ needs.^116,119 Person-centered care, characterized by a strong partnership between patient and clinician, is already strongly endorsed,⁷¹ but partnership is also needed in the scientific evidence that underpins care to be truly responsive to the needs and priorities of people with stroke.

Inconsistency was evident in how PPI was reported across studies. Often, quality of the engagement could not be determined (e.g. articles which included a PPI co-author or recognized PPI contribution in acknowledgements only), an approach that has been labeled as “virtue signaling” in the literature.¹¹⁸ This is important to address in future stroke research to eliminate current ambiguity on what constitutes PPI and its impact.¹²⁰ Standardized reporting guidelines reduce time and reporting biases and increase manuscript quality and readers’ comprehension.¹²¹ We recommend PPI checklist items be adopted in stroke research reporting to ensure transparency and consistency across the international literature^8,22 as inconsistencies were evident in this review’s findings. Indeed, authors of this review could not exclude studies by abstract, as PPI seldom appeared in this section.

Facilitators and barriers to PPI, with important considerations for future stroke research, were identified in n = 21 studies in this scoping review. Organization, particularly with respect to PPI meetings, was the most-cited facilitator to successful PPI-implementation, although capacity-building for PPI partners and adequate resourcing of PPI activities were deemed important. In contrast, funding constraints, time required, and limited representation from marginalized groups were commonly identified barriers. We observed a positive reporting bias for PPI in stroke research.¹²² One of two previously identified pitfalls, summarized as the tale of two towers, was identified: (1) The Tower of Babel, where medical jargon/paradigms propagate impressions of academic elitism (identified in this review as inaccessible PPI materials), and (2) The Ivory Tower (not identified), where critical inputs from outside academia that challenge views are unwelcome.¹²²

Some limitations in this scoping review require consideration. We restricted our search to English language publications from 2014 onwards. It is possible we may have missed studies including PPI. We excluded articles that only described PPI methodologies and study protocols detailing PPI activity as they did not meet the criterion of empirical research. Where research cited a twinned article addressing its PPI methods, we did include this research. Many conference abstracts addressing PPI activities were eliminated. We justified these choices as consumers of research (clinicians, service funders/providers) usually seek empirical evidence, alongside patient preferences, to guide practice.^123
–125

In keeping with GRIPP2 reporting items, we briefly reflect on PPI in this scoping review. Our PPI partner and co-author provided insights that helped refine the published protocol and shape the review questions. The review findings, considered from the perspective of someone with lived experience of stroke and experience as an active PPI panel member, helped expand our discussion points. Our collaboration was facilitated by having a PPI partner with prior research experience and well-established working relations. PPI activities, conducted in personal time, required balancing work and family commitments.

Conclusion and future research recommendations

There is poor uptake of PPI in published stroke research currently, notably in low- and middle-income countries. Where included, articles reporting PPI lack consistency in what they report and how they report it. To improve the quantity and quality of PPI-embedded empirical stroke research, several key recommendations are made:

Senior stroke researchers must lead by example, welcoming PPI as a necessary cultural change in research conduct.

Experiential knowledge of PPI partners should be considered in all research cycle phases to improve relevance, quality, and validity of stroke research and to ensure opportunity for equitable partnership and contribution as authors.

Investment in training for researchers and PPI partners is required to build working relations, establish clear roles and responsibilities, and ensure transparency in communication and documentation.

Financial remuneration that reflects PPI partners’ time is required.

Ethical engagement with diverse stroke communities is needed to ensure adequate representation in PPI partners.

PPI should be integral to ongoing global efforts to build stroke research capacity in low- and middle-income countries.

PPI should become a standard item for journal submission, including a reporting checklist (e.g. GRIPP2) for quality and consistency, and PPI should be referenced in the abstract/keywords.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-wso-10.1177_17474930241262638 – Supplemental material for A scoping review of patient and public involvement in empirical stroke research

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-wso-10.1177_17474930241262638 for A scoping review of patient and public involvement in empirical stroke research by Paula da Cruz Peniche, Christina Danielli Coelho de Morais Faria, Patricia Hall, Caitriona Fingleton, Louise McPhillips, Rebecca Gaetz, Aaron Roche, Laura McCann, Padraig O’Beaglaoich, Diarmuid Murphy, Julianne Hickey and Olive Lennon in International Journal of Stroke

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-2-wso-10.1177_17474930241262638 – Supplemental material for A scoping review of patient and public involvement in empirical stroke research

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-wso-10.1177_17474930241262638 for A scoping review of patient and public involvement in empirical stroke research by Paula da Cruz Peniche, Christina Danielli Coelho de Morais Faria, Patricia Hall, Caitriona Fingleton, Louise McPhillips, Rebecca Gaetz, Aaron Roche, Laura McCann, Padraig O’Beaglaoich, Diarmuid Murphy, Julianne Hickey and Olive Lennon in International Journal of Stroke

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-3-wso-10.1177_17474930241262638 – Supplemental material for A scoping review of patient and public involvement in empirical stroke research

Supplemental material, sj-docx-3-wso-10.1177_17474930241262638 for A scoping review of patient and public involvement in empirical stroke research by Paula da Cruz Peniche, Christina Danielli Coelho de Morais Faria, Patricia Hall, Caitriona Fingleton, Louise McPhillips, Rebecca Gaetz, Aaron Roche, Laura McCann, Padraig O’Beaglaoich, Diarmuid Murphy, Julianne Hickey and Olive Lennon in International Journal of Stroke

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: Supported by funding from Health Research Board Ireland (iPASTAR CDA-2019-004),Worldwide Universities Network (WUN);Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CAPES) Brazil,Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) Brazil,Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) Brazil.

ORCID iDs

Christina Danielli Coelho de Morais Faria

Patricia Hall

Olive Lennon

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Feigin

Owolabi

and World Stroke Organization–Lancet Neurology Commission Stroke Collaboration Group. Pragmatic solutions to reduce the global burden of stroke: a World Stroke Organization–Lancet Neurology Commission. Lancet Neurol 2023; 22: 1160–1206.

Health Research Board. Public and patient involvement in research, https://www.hrb.ie/funding/funding-schemes/public-patient-and-carer-involvement-in-research/ (2022, accessed 20 April 2024).

National Institute for Health and Care Research. Patients, carers and the public, https://www.nihr.ac.uk/patients-carers-and-the-public/ (2024, accessed 20 April 2024).

National Institute for Health Research. Patient and public involvement in health and social care research: a handbook for researchers, https://oxfordbrc.nihr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/RDS-PPI-Handbook-2014-v8-FINAL-2.pdf (2014, accessed 20 April 2024).

Blackburn

McLachlan

Jowett

, et al. The extent, quality and impact of patient and public involvement in primary care research: a mixed methods study. Res Involv Engagem 2018; 4: 16.

Brett

Staniszewska

Mockford

, et al. A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities. Patient 2014; 7: 387–395.

Thompson

Bissell

Cooper

Armitage

Barber

Exploring the impact of patient and public involvement in a cancer research setting. Qual Health Res 2014; 24: 46–54.

Staley

Exploring impact: public involvement in NHS, public health and social care research. Eastleigh: INVOLVE, 2009.

Baggott

Healthy democracy: the future of involvement in health and social care. Health Expect 2008; 11: 202–203.

10.

Forbat

Hubbard

Kearney

Patient and public involvement: models and muddles. J Clin Nurs 2009; 18: 2547–2554.

11.

Staniszewska

Brett

Simera

, et al. GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. BMJ 2017; 358: j3453.

12.

Staniszewska

Adebajo

Barber

, et al. Developing the evidence base of patient and public involvement in health and social care research: the case for measuring impact. Int J Consum Stud 2011; 35: 628–632.

13.

Staniszewska

Herron-Marx

Mockford

Measuring the impact of patient and public involvement: the need for an evidence base. Int J Qual Health Care 2008; 20: 373–374.

14.

Staley

Barron

Learning as an outcome of involvement in research: what are the implications for practice, reporting and evaluation?

Res Involv Engagem 2019; 5: 14.

15.

Conklin

Morris

Nolte

What is the evidence base for public involvement in health-care policy? Results of a systematic scoping review. Health Expect 2015; 18: 153–165.

16.

Modigh

Sampaio

Moberg

Fredriksson

The impact of patient and public involvement in health research versus healthcare: a scoping review of reviews. Health Policy 2021; 125: 1208–1221.

17.

Colomer-Lahiguera

Steimer

Ellis

, et al. Patient and public involvement in cancer research: a scoping review. Cancer Med 2023; 12: 15530–15543.

18.

Røssvoll

Hanssen

Rosenvinge

Liabo

Pettersen

Patient and public involvement in occupational therapy health research: a scoping review. OTJR 2023; 43: 119–126.

19.

Carroll

Dervan

Maher

, et al. Applying patient and public involvement in preclinical research: a co-created scoping review. Health Expect 2022; 25: 2680–2699.

20.

Miah

Dawes

Edwards

Leroi

Starling

Parsons

Patient and public involvement in dementia research in the European Union: a scoping review. BMC Geriatr 2019; 19: 220.

21.

Owyang

Bakhsh

Brewer

, et al. Patient and public involvement within orthopaedic research: a systematic review. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2021; 103: e51.

22.

Staniszewska

Brett

Mockford

Barber

The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2011; 27: 391–399.

23.

Fisher

Seastrong

The past decade at stroke. Stroke 2020; 51: 1032–1035.

24.

Kamtchum-Tatuene

Zafack

JG.

Keeping up with the medical literature: why, how, and when?

Stroke 2021; 52: e746–e748.

25.

National Institute for Health Research. Briefing notes for researchers, https://www.nihr.ac.uk/documents/briefing-notes-for-researchers-public-involvement-in-nhs-health-and-social-care-research/27371 (2024, accessed 20 April 2024).

26.

Grant

Booth

A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J 2009; 26: 91–108.

27.

Munn

Peters

MDJ

Stern

Tufanaru

McArthur

Aromataris

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018; 18: 143.

28.

Peters

MDJ

Marnie

Tricco

, et al. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evid Synth 2020; 18: 2119–2126.

29.

Tricco

Lillie

Zarin

, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018; 169: 467–473.

30.

Arksey

O’Malley

Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 2005; 8: 19–32.

31.

McGowan

Straus

Moher

, et al. Reporting scoping reviews—PRISMA ScR extension. J Clin Epidemiol 2020; 123: 177–179.

32.

Hall

Kroll

Hickey

Stokes

Lennon

Patient and public involvement in stroke research: a scoping review protocol. HRB Open Res 2021; 4: 118.

33.

Portney

LG.

Foundations of clinical research: applications to evidence-based practice. 4th ed. hiladelphia, PA: F. A. Davis Company, 2020.

34.

Ahmad Ainuddin

Romli

Hamid

Salim

MSF

Mackenzie

Stroke rehabilitation for falls and risk of falls in Southeast Asia: a scoping review with stakeholders’ consultation. Front Public Health 2021; 9: 611793.

35.

Allen

Pearn

Monks

, et al. Can clinical audits be enhanced by pathway simulation and machine learning? An example from the acute stroke pathway. BMJ Open 2019; 9: e028296.

36.

Andrews

Moore

Weinberg

, et al. Ensuring respect for persons in COMPASS: a cluster randomised pragmatic clinical trial. J Med Ethics 2018; 44: 560–566.

37.

Aries

Bailey

Hunter

SM.

The mutual benefits of patient and public involvement in research: an example from a feasibility study (MoTaStim-Foot). Res Involv Engagem 2021; 7: 87.

38.

Barnfield

Pitts

Kalaria

Allan

Tullo

“Is all the stuff about neurons necessary?” The development of lay summaries to disseminate findings from the Newcastle Cognitive Function after Stroke (COGFAST) study. Res Involv Engagem 2017; 3: 18.

39.

Bharmal

Lucas-Wright

Vassar

, et al. A community engagement symposium to prevent and improve stroke outcomes in diverse communities. Prog Community Health Partnersh 2016; 10: 149–158.

40.

Black

Ramsay

AIG

Baim-Lance

, et al. What does it take to provide clinical interventions with temporal consistency? A qualitative study of London hyperacute stroke units. BMJ Open 2019; 9: e025367.

41.

Blatchford

Aquino

MRJ

Grant

, et al. Patients’ experience of and participation in a stroke self-management programme, My Life After Stroke (MLAS): a multimethod study. BMJ Open 2022; 12: e062700.

42.

Bogstrand

Gramstad

Anke

Stabel

Arntzen

Healthcare professionals’ experiences with rehabilitation practices for patients with cognitive impairment after stroke in North Norway: a qualitative study. Rehabil Res Pract 2022; 2022: 8089862.

43.

Busetto

Hoffmann

Stang

, et al. Patient pathways during acute in-hospital stroke treatment: a qualitative multi-method study. Int J Integr Care 2022; 22: 16.

44.

Cadilhac

Kilkenny

Srikanth

, et al. Do cognitive, language, or physical impairments affect participation in a trial of self-management programs for stroke? Int J Stroke 2016; 11: 77–84.

45.

Charalambous

Kountouri

Phylactou

, et al. The views of people living with chronic stroke and aphasia on their potential involvement as research partners: a thematic analysis. Res Involv Engagem 2022; 8: 48.

46.

Clarke

Gombert-Waldron

Honey

, et al. Co-designing organisational improvements and interventions to increase inpatient activity in four stroke units in England: a mixed-methods process evaluation using normalisation process theory. BMJ Open 2021; 11: e042723.

47.

Donetto

Jones

Clarke

, et al. Exploring liminality in the co-design of rehabilitation environments: the case of one acute stroke unit. Health Place 2021; 72: 102695.

48.

Eltringham

Pownall

Bray

, et al. Experiences of dysphagia after stroke: an interview study of stroke survivors and their informal caregivers. Geriatrics (Basel) 2019; 4: 67.

49.

Valenzuela Espinoza

Van Hooff

De Smedt

, et al. Development and pilot testing of 24/7 In-Ambulance telemedicine for acute stroke: prehospital stroke study at the Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel-Project. Cerebrovasc Dis 2016; 42: 15–22.

50.

Franklin

Harhen

Hayes

, et al. Top 10 research priorities relating to aphasia following stroke. Aphasiology 2018; 32: 1388–1395.

51.

Gesell

Coleman

Mettam

, et al. How engagement of a diverse set of stakeholders shaped the design, implementation, and dissemination of a multicenter pragmatic trial of stroke transitional care: the COMPASS study. J Clin Transl Sci 2020; 5: e60.

52.

Golding-Day

Walker

Whitehead

PJ.

Orthotic intervention following stroke: a survey of physiotherapist, occupational therapist and orthotist practice and views in the UK. Int J Ther Rehabil 2022; 29: 1–16.

53.

Gustavsson

Ytterberg

Guidetti

Exploring future possibilities of using information and communication technology in multidisciplinary rehabilitation after stroke—a grounded theory study. Scand J Occup Ther 2020; 27: 223–230.

54.

Hale

Jones

Mulligan

, et al. Developing the Bridges self-management programme for New Zealand stroke survivors: a case study. Int J Ther Rehabil 2014; 21: 381–388.

55.

Hazelton

Thomson

Todhunter-Brown

, et al. Interventions for perceptual disorders following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2022; 11: CD007039.

56.

Hepworth

Rowe

Burnside

Development of a patient reported outcome measures for measuring the impact of visual impairment following stroke. BMC Health Serv Res 2019; 19: 348.

57.

Hepworth

Howard

Hanna

Currie

Rowe

FJ.

“Eye” don’t see: an analysis of visual symptom reporting by stroke survivors from a large epidemiology study. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2021; 30: 105759.

58.

Heron

Kee

Mant

, et al. Stroke Prevention Rehabilitation Intervention Trial of Exercise (SPRITE)—a randomised feasibility study. BMC Cardiovasc Disord 2017; 17: 290.

59.

Hinckley

Boyle

Lombard

Bartels-Tobin

Towards a consumer-informed research agenda for aphasia: preliminary work. Disabil Rehabil 2014; 36: 1042–1050.

60.

Howard

Czanner

Helliwell

Rowe

FJ.

Adaptation to post-stroke homonymous hemianopia—a prospective longitudinal cohort study to identify predictive factors of the adaptation process. Disabil Rehabil 2022; 44: 5152–5161.

61.

Jonzén

Karlsson

Lindahl

OA.

Assessments of a novel digital follow-up tool Rehabkompassen(®) to identify rehabilitation needs among stroke patients in an outpatient setting. Digit Health 2022; 8: 20552076221104662.

62.

Johnson

Apps

Hadjiconstantinou

, et al. The development of a self—management intervention for stroke survivors—My Life After Stroke (MLAS). Disabil Rehabil 2023; 45: 226–234.

63.

Kampling

Reese

Küst

Mittag

Systematic development of practice guidelines for psychological interventions in stroke rehabilitation. Disabil Rehabil 2020; 42: 1616–1622.

64.

Kearns

Kelly

Pitt

. Rating experience of ICT-delivered aphasia rehabilitation: co-design of a feedback questionnaire. Aphasiology 2020; 34: 319–342.

65.

King

Wittenberg

Patel

, et al. The future incidence, prevalence and costs of stroke in the UK. Age Ageing 2020; 49: 277–282.

66.

Kjörk

Sunnerhagen

Lundgren-Nilsson , et al. Development of a digital tool for people with a long-term condition using stroke as a case example: participatory design approach. JMIR Hum Factors 2022; 9: e35478.

67.

Kwok

Cheung

Gordon

, et al. Patient and therapist perspectives on physical therapy outcome measures and engagement after stroke: a case study. Physiother Theory Pract 2023; 39: 2639–2650.

68.

Kyle

Skleparis

Mair

, et al. What helps and hinders the provision of healthcare that minimises treatment burden and maximises patient capacity? A qualitative study of stroke health professional perspectives. BMJ Open 2020; 10: e034113.

69.

Lam

SKY

Chau

JPC

SHS

, et al. User engagement in the development of a home-based virtual multidisciplinary stroke care clinic for stroke survivors and caregivers: a qualitative descriptive study. Disabil Rehabil 2022; 44: 5983–5989.

70.

Langstaff

Martin

Brown

, et al. Enhancing community-based rehabilitation for stroke survivors: creating a discharge link. Top Stroke Rehabil 2014; 21: 510–519.

71.

Lawrence

Asaba

Duncan

, et al. Stroke secondary prevention, a non-surgical and non-pharmacological consensus definition: results of a Delphi study. BMC Res Notes 2019; 12: 823.

72.

Lievesley

Powell

Carey

, et al. Co-designing for behaviour change: the development of a theory-informed oral-care intervention for stroke survivors. Design Health 2022; 6: 221–243.

73.

Luo

Yang

Zhang

Development and validation of a patient-reported outcome measure for stroke patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2015; 13: 53.

74.

Lynch

Lassig

Turner

, et al. Prioritizing guideline recommendations for implementation: a systematic, consumer-inclusive process with a case study using the Australian Clinical Guidelines for Stroke Management. Health Res Policy Syst 2021; 19: 85.

75.

Manning

MacFarlane

Hickey

, et al. The relevance of stroke care for living well with post-stroke aphasia: a qualitative interview study with working-aged adults. Disabil Rehabil 2020; 44: 3440–3452.

76.

Manning

MacFarlane

Hickey

Galvin

Franklin

‘I hated being ghosted’—the relevance of social participation for living well with post-stroke aphasia: qualitative interviews with working aged adults. Health Expect 2021; 24: 1504–1515.

77.

Manning

MacFarlane

Hickey

Galvin

Franklin

Regulating emotional responses to aphasia to re-engage in life: a qualitative interview study. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2022; 57: 352–365.

78.

Marshall

Devane

Talbot

, et al. A randomised trial of social support group intervention for people with aphasia: a novel application of virtual reality. PLoS ONE 2020; 15: e0239715.

79.

McCormick

Ireland

Yohannes

Holmes

PS.

Technology-dependent rehabilitation involving action observation and movement imagery for adults with stroke: can it work? Feasibility of self-led therapy for upper limb rehabilitation after stroke. Stroke Res Treat 2022; 2022: 8185893.

80.

McKevitt

Fudge

Crichton

, et al. Patient engagement with research: European population register study. Health Expect 2015; 18: 3248–3261.

81.

Mir

Siemieniuk

RAC

, et al. Patent foramen ovale closure, antiplatelet therapy or anticoagulation in patients with patent foramen ovale and cryptogenic stroke: a systematic review and network meta-analysis incorporating complementary external evidence. BMJ Open 2018; 8: e023761.

82.

Mondal

MBA

Hasan

ATMH

Khan

Mohammad

QD.

Prevalence and risk factors of stroke in Bangladesh: a nationwide population-based survey. eNeurologicalSci 2022; 28: 100414.

83.

Morris

Meeting the psychological needs of community-living stroke patients and carers: a study of third sector provision. Disabil Rehabil 2016; 38: 52–61.

84.

Morris

Irvine

Dombrowski

, et al. We Walk: a person-centred, dyadic behaviour change intervention to promote physical activity through outdoor walking after stroke-an intervention development study. BMJ Open 2022; 12: e058563.

85.

Nave

Rackoll

Grittner

, et al. Physical Fitness Training In Patients With Subacute Stroke (PHYS-STROKE): multicentre, randomised controlled, endpoint blinded trial. BMJ 2019; 366: 5101.

86.

Patchick

Horne

Woodward-Nutt

Vail

Bowen

Development of a patient-centred, patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for post-stroke cognitive rehabilitation: qualitative interviews with stroke survivors to inform design and content. Health Expect 2015; 18: 3213–3224.

87.

Porat

Marshall

Sadler

, et al. Collaborative design of a decision aid for stroke survivors with multimorbidity: a qualitative study in the UK engaging key stakeholders. BMJ Open 2019; 9: e0303852019.

88.

Prick

JCM

van Schaik

Deijle

, et al. Development of a patient decision aid for discharge planning of hospitalized patients with stroke. BMC Neurol 2022; 22: 245.

89.

Rai

Morton

Roman

, et al. Optimizing a digital intervention for managing blood pressure in stroke patients using a diverse sample: integrating the person-based approach and patient and public involvement. Health Expect 2021; 24: 327–340.

90.

Ramage

Burke

Galloway

, et al. Fit for purpose. Co-production of complex behavioural interventions. A practical guide and exemplar of co-producing a telehealth-delivered exercise intervention for people with stroke. Health Res Policy Syst 2022; 20: 2.

91.

Rowe

FJ.

International practice in care provision for post-stroke visual impairment. Strabismus 2017; 25: 112–119.

92.

Rowe

Hepworth

Howard

Hanna

Helliwell

Developing a stroke-vision care pathway: a consensus study. Disabil Rehabil 2022; 44: 487–495.

93.

Sadler

Sarre

Tinker

Bhalla

McKevitt

Developing a novel peer support intervention to promote resilience after stroke. Health Soc Care Community 2017; 25: 1590–1600.

94.

Sadler

Porat

Marshall

, et al. Shaping innovations in long-term care for stroke survivors with multimorbidity through stakeholder engagement. PLoS ONE 2017; 12: e0177102.

95.

Shiggins

Coed

Gilberte

, et al. Development of an “Aphasia-accessible participant in research experience survey” through co-production. Aphasiology 2022; 1–34.

96.

Smith

Burgess

Sorinola

The effect of a dysfunctional upper limb on community-dwelling stroke survivors and their carers: an interpretative phenomenological analysis. Physiother Res Int 2018; 23: e1726.

97.

Solbakken

Langhammer

Sundseth

Brovold

Transitional care for patients with acute stroke-a priority-setting project. Health Expect 2022; 25: 1741–1752.

98.

Aguiar de Sousa

von Martial

Abilleira

, et al. Access to and delivery of acute ischaemic stroke treatments: a survey of national scientific societies and stroke experts in 44 European countries. Eur Stroke J 2019; 4: 13–28.

99.

Thayabaranathan

Immink

Hillier

, et al. Co-designing a new yoga-based mindfulness intervention for survivors of stroke: a formative evaluation. Neurol Int 2021; 14: 1–10.

100.

Turner

McMullan

Atkins

, et al. TIA and minor stroke: a qualitative study of long-term impact and experiences of follow-up care. BMC Fam Pract 2019; 20: 176.

101.

Wairagkar

McCrindle

Robson

, et al. MaLT—combined motor and language therapy tool for brain injury patients using Kinect. Methods Inf Med 2017; 56: 127–137.

102.

Webster

Morris

Malone

, et al. Reading comprehension difficulties in people with aphasia: investigating personal perception of reading ability, practice, and difficulties. Aphasiology 2021; 35: 805–823.

103.

Wilson

Coleby

Regen

, et al. Service factors causing delay in specialist assessment for TIA and minor stroke: a qualitative study of GP and patient perspectives. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e011654.

104.

Xian

O’Brien

, et al. Real world effectiveness of warfarin among ischemic stroke patients with atrial fibrillation: observational analysis from Patient-centered Research Into Outcomes Stroke Patients Prefer and Effectiveness Research (PROSPER) study. BMJ 2015; 351: h3786.

105.

Zhu

Zhou

Zhang

, et al. The Stroke Stigma Scale: a reliable and valid stigma measure in patients with stroke. Clin Rehabil 2019; 33: 1800–1809.

106.

National Institute for Health and Care Research, https://www.nihr.ac.uk/about-us/ (2024, accessed 20 April 2024).

107.

National Health and Medical Research Council. Consumer and community engagement, https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us (2024, accessed 20 April 2024).

108.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Canada’s strategy for patient-oriented research: improving health outcomes through evidence-informed care, https://cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41204.html (2023, accessed 20 April 2024).

109.

Gilfoyle

MacFarlane

Hannigan

Niranjan

Hughes

Salsberg

The public and patient involvement imperative in Ireland: building on policy drivers. Front Public Health 2022; 10: 1038409.

110.

Selby

Forsythe

Sox

HC.

Stakeholder-driven comparative effectiveness research: an update from PCORI. JAMA 2015; 314: 2235–2236.

111.

Frank

Basch

Selby

, et al. The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. JAMA 2014; 312: 1513–1514.

112.

Ocloo

Matthews

From tokenism to empowerment: progressing patient and public involvement in healthcare improvement. BMJ Qual Saf 2016; 25: 626–632.

113.

Fox

Fergusson

Daham

, et al. Patient engagement in preclinical laboratory research: a scoping review. EBioMedicine 2021; 70: 103484.

114.

GBD 2019 Stroke Collaborators. Global, regional, and national burden of stroke and its risk factors, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet Neurol 2021; 20: 795–820.

115.

Boote

Baird

Sutton

Public involvement in the design and conduct of clinical trials: a narrative review of case examples. Trials 2011; 12: A82.

116.

Tong

Scholes-Robertson

Hawley

, et al. Patient-centred clinical trial design. Nat Rev Nephrol 2022; 18: 514–523.

117.

Banerjee

Lowe-Jones

Damster

, et al. International perspectives on patient involvement in clinical trials in nephrology. Kidney Int 2020; 98: 566–571.

118.

Wicks

Richards

Denegri

Godlee

Patients’ roles and rights in research. BMJ 2018; 362: k3193.

119.

James Lind Alliance. The James Lind Alliance Guidebook. Version 10. Southampton: James Lind Alliance, https://www.jla.nihr.ac.uk/jla-guidebook/downloads/JLA-Guidebook-Version-10-March-2021.pdf (2021, accessed 20 April 2024).

120.

McKevitt

Fudge

Wolfe

What is involvement in research and what does it achieve? Reflections on a pilot study of the personal costs of stroke. Health Expect 2010; 13: 86–94.

121.

Schulz

Altman

Moher

CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Pharmacol Pharmacother 2010; 1: 100–107.

122.

Hardavella

Bjerg

Saad

, et al. How to optimise patient and public involvement in your research: doing science. Breathe 2015; 11: 223–227.

123.

Australia Government, Department of Health and Aged Care. Rapid applied research translation Initiative, https://www.health.gov.au/our-work/mrff-rapid-applied-research-translation-initiative?language=und#why-it-is-important (2024, accessed 20 April 2024).

124.

Kristensen

Nymann

Konradsen

Implementing research results in clinical practice- the experiences of healthcare professionals. BMC Health Serv Res 2016; 16: 48.

125.

Schulte

MC.

Evidence-based medicine-a paradigm ready to be challenged? How scientific evidence shapes our understanding and use of medicine. Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag GmbH, 2020.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.08 MB

0.01 MB

0.00 MB

0.07 MB