Evidence Hub

Information provision for stroke patients and their caregivers

Forster A, Brown L, Smith J, House A, Knapp P, Wright JJ, Young J

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2012

1,290 participants

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Research shows that stroke patients and their families are dissatisfied with the information provided and have a poor understanding of stroke and associated issues.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of information provision strategies in improving the outcome for stroke patients or their identified caregivers, or both.

SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register (June 2012), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), the NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED), and the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database (The Cochrane Library June, 2012), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2012), EMBASE (1980 to June 2012), CINAHL (1982 to June 2012) and PsycINFO (1974 to June 2012). We also searched ongoing trials registers, scanned bibliographies of relevant articles and books and contacted researchers.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials involving patients or carers of patients with a clinical diagnosis of stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) where an information intervention was compared with standard care, or where information and another therapy were compared with the other therapy alone.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and methodological quality and extracted data. Primary outcomes were knowledge about stroke and stroke services, and impact…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 1,290 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free