ReviewDigital health
Exploring person-centredness in technology-based gait rehabilitation after stroke: A scoping review framework analysis.
Review in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Editorial: Technological innovations in neuropsychiatric disorders: virtual reality and beyond.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Technology-based gait rehabilitation after stroke is expanding, however the extent to which interventions embody person-centred care remains unclear. Aims: The objective of this review is to explore the extent to which technology-based interventions for gait rehabilitation in stroke survivors reflect the principles of person-centred practice. Methods: A scoping review was conducted following the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines. A comprehensive search was performed in MEDLINE Complete, CINAHL Complete, Nursing & Allied Health Collection: Comprehensive, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, with the last search update on September 1, 2025. Data charting was aligned with the domains of the PCPF, enabling the identification of person-centredness indicators both explicitly stated in the texts and inferred from their context. Results: The search identified 1,460 records; after screening, 21 randomised controlled trials were included. Extracted data were mapped to PCPF domains to identify explicit and implicit indicators of person-centredness. Representation was variable: Prerequisites, Practice Environment, Person-Centred Processes, and Outcomes appeared across studies, while Macro Context was absent. Alignment was evident via practitioner expertise and responsive parameter adjustments (Prerequisites), specialised, well-resourced settings (Practice Environment), and personalised goal setting, real-time feedback, and preference-sensitive features (Processes). Regarding outcomes, all studies reported performance-based measures (motor performance); one included biomarker outcomes and two used Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (quality of life). No Patient-Reported Experience Measures were reported. Conclusion: Technology-focused gait trials remain predominantly biomedical in framing and reporting. Future studies should embed and report explicit person-centred processes and broaden outcomes to include patient-reported experience measures.
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.