Assessing Participation Among Stroke Survivors: A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

Five translated versions of included tools were excluded by the eligibility criteria (Italian FBP, Portuguese SIPSO, Danish RMI, Spanish SIS 3.0, Spanish SIS-16), so the review may underrepresent some language groups. Self-report tools are shaped by cultural values around what counts as participation and satisfaction, and the authors note that validity in one culture does not guarantee it in another. No single PROM covers all dimensions of participation. Only SIPSO touches leisure and work, and only MAPA captures meaningfulness and value alongside frequency. The FBP, one of the ten tools, lacks sufficient psychometric evidence for stroke populations, so any recommendation that includes it is weaker than the others. The review assesses measurement instruments, not interventions. It tells you which tools are psychometrically sound, not whether using them improves patient outcomes.

Do not read the review as saying SIS 3.0 is the one tool to use for every stroke patient. The authors recommend it for broad, detailed assessment but explicitly direct you to NEADL when you need independence scores by activity area, to MAPA when meaningfulness is the question, and to RMI when you only need a quick mobility check. The right tool depends on what you are trying to find out.