This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 37/9/2410    most recent 01.STR.0000237097.00342.a9v1 Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Redfern, J. Articles by Wolfe, C. D.A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Redfern, J. Articles by Wolfe, C. D.A. Related Collections Behavioral/psychosocial - treatment Compliance/Adherence Primary prevention Secondary prevention Behavioral/psychosocial - stroke

(Stroke. 2006;37:2410.)
© 2006 American Heart Association, Inc.

Progress Reviews

Development of Complex Interventions in Stroke Care

A Systematic Review

From the King’s College London, UK.

Correspondence to Judith Redfern, Division of Health & Social Care Research, Kings College London, 7th Floor Capital House, 42 Weston St, London SE1 3QD, UK. 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:

				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., August 27, 2008; (2008) cmn048v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

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