Meta-synthesis of qualitative studies on home-based exercise rehabilitation experiences among stroke patients: a continuity of care perspective.
Xinxin Xu, Huangling Xiao, Minghui Zhang and 2 others
PMID 41858321WHAT IT FOUND
Stroke survivors described home exercise as failing when discharge guidance stopped and succeeding when nurses, family, or peers provided ongoing feedback.
Clinicians should treat the first weeks post-discharge as a high-risk gap requiring active follow-up, not just education.
Key findings
01Patients reported that discharge education was often a single briefing that failed to translate hospital prescriptions into safe home routines, leaving them uncertain and isolated.
02Adherence improved when patients received specific feedback from nurses or family, or when they integrated exercise into daily tasks like stair climbing or kitchen work.
03Family and peer support provided emotional security and practical reminders that sustained motivation when professional supervision was absent.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
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 synthesis only included English-language studies, potentially missing important cultural or systemic factors from non-English speaking regions. The included studies varied significantly in healthcare systems and home care cultures across eight countries, which limits how directly these findings apply to any single local context. As a qualitative meta-synthesis, this paper describes patient experiences and barriers but does not measure the effectiveness of any specific intervention or provide quantitative effect sizes for clinical outcomes. Some included studies had unclear reporting on researcher reflexivity, which may have influenced how patient experiences were interpreted.
Declared interests
The authors declared that no financial support was received for this work.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the reported improvements in adherence (e.g., 27% increase with family involvement) as evidence that a specific intervention works. These figures come from qualitative descriptions of patient experiences and self-reported behaviors, not controlled trials, so they cannot predict how much a formal program will improve clinical outcomes.
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 →