Donate Help Contact The AHA Sign In Home
American Heart Association
Stroke
Search: search_blue_button Advanced Search
Published Online
on August 10, 2006

Stroke. 2006
Published online before print August 10, 2006, doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000237097.00342.a9
A more recent version of this article appeared on September 1, 2006
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
37/9/2410    most recent
01.STR.0000237097.00342.a9v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Redfern, J.
Right arrow Articles by Wolfe, C. D.A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Redfern, J.
Right arrow Articles by Wolfe, C. D.A.
Right arrowPubmed/NCBI databases
Medline Plus Health Information
*Health Literacy
*Stroke
Related Collections
Right arrow Behavioral/psychosocial - treatment
Right arrow Compliance/Adherence
Right arrow Primary prevention
Right arrow Secondary prevention
Right arrow Behavioral/psychosocial - stroke

Submitted on April 7, 2006
Accepted on May 4, 2006

Development of Complex Interventions in Stroke Care. A Systematic Review

Judith Redfern MSc*; Christopher McKevitt PhD; and Charles D.A. Wolfe MD, FFPHM, FRCOG

From the King’s College London, UK.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: Judith.m.redfern{at}kcl.ac.uk.

Background and Purpose--Stroke care is complex, requiring input from professionals, patients and carers. Identifying and developing appropriate intervention components to meet these complex needs is difficult. The Medical Research Council (MRC) Framework for developing and evaluating ‘complex’ (nonpharmacological) interventions aims to improve intervention development. This study uses the Framework to review complex interventions in stroke care.

Methods--Systematic review with multiple search strategies (electronic databases, recent journals, gray literature) was used. The MRC Framework was used to guide the search strategy and assess study quality. ‘Complex interventions’ were defined as educational/psychosocial interventions to change knowledge, beliefs or behaviors.

Results--Sixty-seven studies were included: 39 randomized controlled trials (RCT) and 28 other designs. Complex interventions targeted healthcare professionals (17), and patients, carers and the general population (21 targeting primary or secondary prevention; 30 targeting adjustment and recovery after stroke). Compared with recovery studies, primary and secondary prevention studies were significantly less likely to have been evaluated in RCTs. Interventions evaluated in RCTs were significantly less likely to influence primary outcomes (26%) compared with other designs (44%). Theoretical grounding to support intervention choice was reported in 40 studies but only 14 were theoretically ‘well developed’; 21 RCTs listed multiple primary outcome measures, with 10 listing 5 or more. Of these only 3 reported considering statistical power before recruitment and none was sufficiently powered.

Conclusion--Few complex interventions in stroke care have been adequately developed or evaluated. This may explain failures to demonstrate efficacy. In future, greater attention is needed to theoretical development and methodological quality.


Key words: methodology • prevention • randomized controlled trials • stroke




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. PsychiatryHome page
J Joubert, C Reid, D Barton, T Cumming, A McLean, L Joubert, J Barlow, D Ames, and S Davis
Integrated care improves risk-factor modification after stroke: initial results of the Integrated Care for the Reduction of Secondary Stroke model
J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry, March 1, 2009; 80(3): 279 - 284.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Fam PractHome page
R. Allison, P. H Evans, C. Kilbride, and J. L Campbell
Secondary prevention of stroke: using the experiences of patients and carers to inform the development of an educational resource
Fam. Pract., October 1, 2008; 25(5): 355 - 361.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
StrokeHome page
L. Kalra and R. Ratan
Recent Advances in Stroke Rehabilitation 2006
Stroke, February 1, 2007; 38(2): 235 - 237.
[Full Text] [PDF]