ArticleBMC neurology2026
The network and care coordination of ambulatory healthcare providers for people with mobility impairments: a cross-sectional network study involving stroke survivors and people with spinal cord injury in Germany.
Article in BMC neurology, 2026. 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
backgroundPeople with mobility impairments such as stroke survivors or people with spinal cord injury (SCI) receive ambulatory healthcare from several healthcare providers. The coordination of these providers is challenging because there are usually no team meetings or shared treatment protocols. To gain insights into the coordinative processes of ambulatory care, the information transfer between providers was explored.
methodsA cross-sectional network study was conducted in an urban community in the south-west of Germany. First, an exploratory internet search for local providers was conducted. Then, providers were asked to distribute a survey to their patients (stroke, SCI) to identify the provider network. This was followed by a survey of the providers named by the surveyed patients. Network analysis was applied to explore connections and network characteristics (density, centrality).
resultsBased on the patient survey (n = 22), a total of 58 healthcare providers in the community were identified, 20 of whom took part in the provider survey. In the network identified, physiotherapists, general practitioners, occupational therapists, orthopaedic technicians, neurologists, speech therapists and neuropsychologists were connected by 251 ties. The network had a density of 0.152 and a centrality of 0.442. Inter-organizational information sharing was only mentioned for 12 connections between healthcare providers. Care coordination in the community was rated as medium.
conclusionNetwork analysis provided insight into a local network of healthcare providers. The network is dominated by a few providers and all providers have a low degree of connectivity. This study found that sharing of patient's information between providers is rarely implemented.
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.