Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: To systematically review self-management interventions to determine their efficacy for people with stroke in relation to any health outcome and to establish whether stroke survivors with aphasia were included. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, and IBSS and undertook gray literature searches. Randomized controlled trials were eligible if they included stroke survivors aged 18 + in a "self-management" intervention. Data were extracted by two independent researchers and included an assessment of methodological quality. RESULTS: 24 studies were identified. 11 out of 24 reported statistically significant benefits in favor of self-management. However, there were significant limitations in terms of methodological quality, and meta-analyses (n= 8 studies) showed no statistically significant benefit of self-management upon global disability and stroke-specific quality of life at 3 months or ADL at 3 or 6 months follow-up. A review of inclusion and exclusion criteria showed 11 out of 24 (46%) studies reported total or partial exclusion of stroke survivors with aphasia. Four out of 24 (17%) reported the number of stroke survivors with aphasia included. In nine studies (38%) it was unclear whether stroke survivors with aphasia were included or excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Robust conclusions regarding the effectiveness of poststroke self-management approaches could not be drawn. Further trials are needed, these should clearly report the population included. Implications for rehabilitation There is a lack of evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of self-management approaches for stroke survivors. It is unclear whether self-management approaches are suitable for stroke survivors with aphasia, particularly those with moderate or severe aphasia. Further research is needed to understand the optimal timing for self-management in the stroke pathway and the format in which self-management support should be offered.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wray et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: