Improving the development, monitoring and reporting of stroke rehabilitation research: Consensus-based core recommendations from the Stroke Recovery and Rehabilitation Roundtable

International Journal of Stroke

Volumn 12, Issue 5, 2017, Pages 472-479

  Walker, Marion F ^a   Hoffmann, Tammy C ^b   Brady, Marian C ^c   Dean, Catherine M ^d   Eng, Janice J ^e   Farrin, Amanda J ^f   Felix, Cynthia ^g   Forster, Anne ^f   Langhorne, Peter ^h   Lynch, Elizabeth A ^i,j   Radford, Kathryn A ^a   Sunnerhagen, Katharina S ^k   Watkins, Caroline L ^l,m  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^b BOND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^c GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^d MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY OF LEEDS   (United Kingdom)

^g GEORGE INSTITUTE FOR GLOBAL HEALTH   (Australia)

^h UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW   (United Kingdom)

ⁱ FLOREY INSTITUTE OF NEUROSCIENCE AND MENTAL HEALTH   (Australia)

^j UNIVERSITY OF ADELAIDE   (Australia)

^k UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^l UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL LANCASHIRE   (United Kingdom)

^m AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

more..

Author keywords

fidelity; intervention development; rehabilitation; reporting; Stroke

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS; CONSENSUS; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION; INTERVENTION STUDY; MONITORING; PATIENT CARE; PENNSYLVANIA; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRAM EFFICACY; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REHABILITATION RESEARCH; STROKE PATIENT; STROKE REHABILITATION; TELECONFERENCE; METHODOLOGY; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS;

HUMANS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; REHABILITATION RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN; STROKE REHABILITATION;

EID: 85023738585     PISSN: 17474930     EISSN: 17474949     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1747493017711815     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. McIntyre A, Campbell N, Vermeer J, Mays R, Janzen S, Teasell R. Methodological quality of motor intervention randomized controlled trials in stroke rehabilitation. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis 2016; 25: 248–253.
2. Bernhardt J, Borschmann K, Boyd L. Moving rehabilitation research forward: developing consensus statements for rehabilitation and recovery research. Int J Stroke 2016; 11: 454–458.
3. Michie S, van Stralen MM, West R. The behaviour change wheel: a new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implement Sci 2011; 6: 1.
4. Medical Research Council. A framework for development and evaluation of RCTs for complex interventions to improve health, London: Medical Research Council, 2000.
5. Medical Research Council. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance. London: Medical Research Council, 2006
6. Redfern J, McKevitt C, Wolfe CD. Development of complex interventions in stroke care a systematic review. Stroke 2006; 37: 2410–2419.
7. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014; 348: g1687.
8. Bellg AJ, Borrelli B, Resnick B. Enhancing treatment fidelity in health behavior change studies: best practices and recommendations from the NIH Behavior Change Consortium. Health Psychol 2004; 23: 443.
9. Carroll C, Patterson M, Wood S, Booth A, Rick J, Balain S. A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implement Sci 2007; 2: 1.
10. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, Kirsh SR, Alexander JA, Lowery JC. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci 2009; 4: 1.
11. Gearing RE, El-Bassel N, Ghesquiere A, Baldwin S, Gillies J, Ngeow E. Major ingredients of fidelity: a review and scientific guide to improving quality of intervention research implementation. Clin Psychol Rev 2011; 31: 79–88.
12. Hildebrand MW, Host HH, Binder EF. Measuring treatment fidelity in a rehabilitation intervention study. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 2012; 91: 715.
13. Masterson-Algar P, Burton CR, Rycroft-Malone J, Sackley CM, Walker MF. Towards a programme theory for fidelity in the evaluation of complex interventions. J Eval Clin Pract 2014; 20: 445–452.
14. Poltawski L, Norris M, Dean S. Intervention fidelity: developing an experience-based model for rehabilitation research. J Rehabil Med 2014; 46: 609–615.
15. Gitlin LN. Introducing a new intervention: an overview of research phases and common challenges. Am J Occup Ther 2013; 67: 177–184.
16. Moore GF, Audrey S, Barker M. Process evaluation of complex interventions: medical research council guidance. BMJ 2015; 350: h1258.
17. Hoffmann TC, Erueti C, Glasziou PP. Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials. BMJ 2013; 347: f3755.
18. DeJong G, Horn SD, Conroy B, Nichols D, Healton EB. Opening the black box of poststroke rehabilitation: stroke rehabilitation patients, processes, and outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86: 1–7.
19. Hoffmann TC, Walker MF, Langhorne P, Eames S, Thomas E, Glasziou P. What's in a name? The challenge of describing interventions in systematic reviews: analysis of a random sample of reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions. BMJ Open 2015; 5: e009051.
20. Hachinski V, Donnan GA, Gorelick PB. Stroke: working toward a prioritized world agenda. Int J Stroke 2010; 5: 238–256.
21. Moher D, Altman DG. Four proposals to help improve the medical research literature. PLoS Med 2015; 12: e1001864.