Promoting community and social participation in chronic stroke: A pilot study of the ENGAGE intervention.
Elizabeth Skidmore, Carolyn Baum, Jessica Kersey and 8 others
PMID 41173735WHAT IT FOUND
Half the participants showed meaningful improvement in social participation, but the study lacked a control group.
The intervention was feasible and safe, with no injuries reported. Therapists should view this as a promising tool for goal-setting, not proven efficacy.
Key findings
01Fifty percent of participants who completed the post-intervention assessment showed a change in scaled scores of 2 points or higher.
02The study met benchmark criteria for participant retention (90%) and safety (0 injuries or injurious falls).
03Participants who completed the post-intervention assessment demonstrated a small to medium effect size of change in community and social participation.
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
This was a single-arm pilot study without a control group, so it is impossible to determine if the improvements were due to the intervention, natural recovery, or simply the passage of time. The sample size was small (n=30) and recruitment was halted at one site due to the pandemic, limiting generalizability. Intervention fidelity could not be assessed for the virtual sessions because the pandemic halted the observation procedures. The study was not powered or designed to test efficacy hypotheses, and the authors explicitly state the effect estimates are not generalizable.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR) and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the 50% improvement rate as evidence that ENGAGE works. Without a control group, this improvement could reflect natural recovery or placebo effects. The study only proves the intervention is feasible and safe, not that it is effective.
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 →