Systematic review assesses interprofessional rehabilitation vs. standard care on quality of life in adults post-stroke, suggesting potential benefits.
OBJECTIVE: This review aims to assess and synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of interprofessional, community-based rehabilitation (IP-CBR) compared with standard care and other non-specialized rehabilitation models in improving quality of life (QoL) among community-dwelling people living with stroke. INTRODUCTION: Stroke is a leading cause of long-term disability among older adults, resulting in functional limitations and reduced QoL. IP-CBR may improve outcomes compared to standard or non-specialized care. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-experimental studies involving adults (≥18 years) living in the community after a clinician-diagnosed stroke will be included. Interventions involve IP-CBR delivered by 2 or more health professions in community/home settings. Comparators include usual care, no rehabilitation, institution-based rehabilitation, conventional CBR, or minimal care. The primary outcome is QoL/health-related QoL (HRQoL) measured using validated instruments. Secondary outcomes include functional status, psychosocial outcomes, perceived health, patient-reported outcomes, and caregiver outcomes. METHODS: This review will follow JBI methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. We will conduct searches across MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, and PsycINFO, with supplementary searches for trial registries and gray literature. Two reviewers will independently screen and appraise sources using JBI tools, and extract data. Meta-analysis will use a random-effects model. Once heterogeneity is assessed, subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be conducted. Narrative synthesis will be used if pooling is not possible. Certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD420251148000.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sarmago et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: