ArticlePloS one2025
Citizen science approaches in the development of post-stroke physical activity interventions: A scoping review.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStroke is a major cause of disability globally, with high recurrence rates despite the implementation of secondary prevention strategies. Promoting physical activity and reducing sedentary behaviour are critical to mitigate these risks. Collaborative research approaches, including citizen science, offer promising methods for developing more effective and sustainable interventions by leveraging patient insights and lived experiences across different research stages.
objectivesThis scoping review explored the application of citizen science approaches in developing interventions targeting physical activity and sedentary behaviour for people with stroke.
methodsFollowing Arksey and O'Malley's framework and the PRISMA-ScR checklist, five databases were searched. We included empirical studies involving stroke patients in research on physical activity or sedentary behaviour interventions. Data was extracted on terminology, collaboration methods, and participant roles and analysed using the Participation Matrix framework. Methodological rigor was assessed using the CASP qualitative checklist.
resultsFourteen studies were included, most published after 2020 and originating from diverse countries. Terms like "co-design," "co-creation," and "patient and public involvement" were prevalent, but "citizen science" was not explicitly mentioned. Methods for active involvement of stroke patients included focus groups, workshops, and advisory panels. Stroke patients primarily participated as advisors or partners during intervention design, with minimal involvement in early research stages, data analysis, or dissemination. Researchers predominantly held decision-making roles.
conclusionsCitizen science in stroke research is still developing, with limited patient involvement across research phases. Expanding the depth and scope of patient involvement could enhance the relevance and long-term impact of interventions.
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.