Feasibility of a novel web-based neuropsychological rehabilitation programme for stroke patients.
Outi Vuori, Heidi Wik, Annamaria Wikström and 3 others
PMID 40985715WHAT IT FOUND
Stroke patients referred to a web-based neuropsychology programme: 86% started it, and 69% of starters completed.
Users who finished rated it easy and useful, and would recommend it. The study did not test whether the programme improved cognition or recovery.
Key findings
0186% of eligible patients started the programme, and 69% of those who started completed it.
02Users who finished the programme rated it 4.5/5 for ease of use and usefulness and 4.6/5 for recommending it to someone with the same condition.
0363% of completers were referred after acute care discharge, compared with 43% of dropouts and 26% of non-starters.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study had no control group and did not compare the programme with usual care, so it cannot show whether the programme caused recovery or improvement. Because it was retrospective and used registries without direct participant contact, reasons for not starting or dropping out were not recorded. User feedback came only from patients who completed the programme, which can make satisfaction ratings more positive than they would be for all patients. Participants could also receive other rehabilitation at the same time, so user behaviour and feedback may reflect those services as well. The programme was designed for adults with mild to moderate cognitive symptoms and Finnish language skills, so results do not apply to all stroke patients. The study period overlapped with the COVID-19 pandemic, which may have changed referral patterns and completion.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the Uusimaa Hospital District, Finland (research grant TYH2022304). The supplied text does not include an additional conflict-of-interest declaration.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the positive feasibility results as evidence that the programme improves cognition, function, or recovery. The study had no control group, and feedback was collected only from patients who completed the programme.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →