ArticleBMJ open2025
Research investigating patient and carer psychoeducation needs regarding post-stroke cognition: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Feasibility and acceptability of ENhanced Reviews of PsychologIcal Changes (ENRICH) after stroke: protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo search the literature systematically in order to map and identify gaps in research investigating patient and family member psychoeducation needs regarding post-stroke cognition.
designScoping review conducted in line with Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) recommendations and PRISMA-ScR checklist.
methodsMEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus were searched on 25 August 2023 for peer-reviewed studies conducted in a high-income country, describing cognition-related psychoeducation needs in stroke survivors and/or family members aged ≥18 years (≥50% of the study population). Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and then full-text articles. One reviewer extracted pre-defined study characteristics and findings. These data were verified by a second reviewer. Synthesis involved descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.
resultsSearches identified 8115 articles, of which 30 were included. Articles were published between 1996 and 2023. Studies were conducted in Australia (n=7), USA (n=6), UK (n=5), Canada (n=3), New Zealand (n=3), Ireland (n=2), Netherlands (n=2), South Korea (n=1) and Sweden (n=1). Most studies (n=21) used an exclusively qualitative approach but six combined qualitative and quantitative methods. The post-stroke period under investigation varied, including the acute/subacute stage (n=10) and the chronic stage (n=3), though many articles did not state the timepoint explicitly. Research was conducted with stroke survivors only (n=7), family members only (n=12) and both stroke survivors and family members (n=11). Qualitative analysis suggested participants wanted psychoeducation about cognitive impairment, including recovery expectations, treatment/therapy options and signposting to services/resources available. Hopeful information was important. Factors potentially impacting cognition-related psychoeducation needs were identified as time since stroke and family member relationship. Most articles focused on aphasia with very few studies considering other cognitive domains (eg, memory, attention, executive function).
conclusionsThe need for psychoeducation regarding cognition is well evidenced throughout the post-stroke care continuum, though most research has focused on language impairments. Further research investigating other cognitive impairments (eg, impairments in memory, attention and executive function) is required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.