Pilot RCT examining feasibility and disability outcomes of a mobile health platform for strategy training in inpatient stroke rehabilitation (iADAPT).

Only 32 participants were randomized and 31 analysed, so effect sizes are imprecise and the study cannot detect a true difference between the two delivery methods. Attrition was high in both groups (50% mobile health, 33.3% workbook during in-person phase), and more than half of withdrawals were due to short hospital stays rather than the intervention itself. The sample was predominantly White (78.5%) with mild-moderate ischemic stroke, limiting generalizability to hemorrhagic stroke, severe impairment, or other populations. The authors state the study was not designed for hypothesis testing of clinical outcomes; the disability and participation results are secondary and descriptive. Wide variability in change scores within both groups made it difficult to interpret the between-group differences in effect sizes.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Do not read the similar disability improvements in both groups as evidence that the mobile health platform works as well as the workbook. This was a feasibility pilot with 32 randomized participants, high attrition in both groups, and the authors state it was not designed for hypothesis testing of clinical outcomes.