Clinical stroke research in resource limited settings: Tips and hints

Addressing disparities in the global epidemiology of stroke

Stroke is the second leading cause of death and the third leading cause of disability worldwide. Though the burden of stroke worldwide seems to have declined in the past three decades, much of this effect reflects decreases in high-income countries (HICs). By contrast, the burden of stroke has grown rapidly in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), where epidemiological, socioeconomic and demographic shifts have increased the incidence of stroke and other non-communicable diseases. Furthermore, even in HICs, disparities in stroke epidemiology exist along racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and geographical lines. In this Review, we highlight the under-acknowledged disparities in the burden of stroke. We emphasize the shifting global landscape of stroke risk factors, critical gaps in stroke service delivery, and the need for a more granular analysis of the burden of stroke within and between LMICs and HICs to guide context-appropriate capacity-building. Finally, we review strategies for addressing key inequalities in stroke epidemiology, including improvements in epidemiological surveillance and context-specific research efforts in under-resourced regions, development of the global workforce of stroke care providers, expansion of access to preventive and treatment services through mobile and telehealth platforms, and scaling up of evidence-based strategies and policies that target local, national, regional and global stroke disparities.

Process evaluations of primary care interventions addressing chronic disease: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Process evaluations (PEs) alongside randomised controlled trials of complex interventions are valuable because they address questions of for whom, how and why interventions had an impact. We synthesised the methods used in PEs of primary care interventions, and their main findings on implementation barriers and facilitators.

DESIGN

Systematic review using the UK Medical Research Council guidance for PE as a guide.

DATA SOURCES

Academic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE and Global Health) were searched from 1998 until June 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included PE alongside randomised controlled trials of primary care interventions which aimed to improve outcomes for patients with non-communicable diseases.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers screened and conducted the data extraction and synthesis, with a third reviewer checking a sample for quality assurance.

RESULTS

69 studies were included. There was an overall lack of consistency in how PEs were conducted and reported. The main weakness is that only 30 studies were underpinned by a clear intervention theory often facilitated by the use of existing theoretical frameworks. The main strengths were robust sampling strategies, and the triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data to understand an intervention's mechanisms. Findings were synthesised into three key themes: (1) a fundamental mismatch between what the intervention was designed to achieve and local needs; (2) the required roles and responsibilities of key actors were often not clearly understood; and (3) the health system context-factors such as governance, financing structures and workforce-if unanticipated could adversely impact implementation.

CONCLUSION

Greater consistency is needed in the reporting and the methods of PEs, in particular greater use of theoretical frameworks to inform intervention theory. More emphasis on formative research in designing interventions is needed to align the intervention with the needs of local stakeholders, and to minimise unanticipated consequences due to context-specific barriers.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016035572.

Family-led rehabilitation in India (ATTEND)-Findings from the process evaluation of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Training family carers to provide evidence-based rehabilitation to stroke patients could address the recognized deficiency of access to stroke rehabilitation in low-resource settings. However, our randomized controlled trial in India (ATTEND) found that this model of care was not superior to usual care alone.

AIMS

This process evaluation aimed to better understand trial outcomes through assessing trial implementation and exploring patients', carers', and providers' perspectives.

METHODS

Our mixed methods study included process, healthcare use data and patient demographics from all sites; observations and semi-structured interviews with participants (22 patients, 22 carers, and 28 health providers) from six sampled sites.

RESULTS

Intervention fidelity and adherence to the trial protocol was high across the 14 sites; however, early supported discharge (an intervention component) was not implemented. Within both randomized groups, some form of rehabilitation was widely accessed. ATTEND stroke coordinators provided counseling and perceived that sustaining patients' motivation to continue with rehabilitation in the face of significant emotional and financial stress as a key challenge. The intervention was perceived as an acceptable community-based package with education as an important component in raising the poor awareness of stroke. Many participants viewed family-led rehabilitation as a necessary model of care for poor and rural populations who could not access rehabilitation.

CONCLUSION

Difficulty in sustaining patient and carer motivation for rehabilitation without ongoing support, and greater than anticipated access to routine rehabilitation may explain the lack of benefit in the trial. Nonetheless, family-led rehabilitation was seen as a concept worthy of further development.