Research investigating patient and carer psychoeducation needs regarding post-stroke cognition: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To search the literature systematically in order to map and identify gaps in research investigating patient and family member psychoeducation needs regarding post-stroke cognition. DESIGN: Scoping review conducted in line with Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) recommendations and PRISMA-ScR checklist. METHODS: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus were searched on 25 August 2023 for peer-reviewed studies conducted in a high-income country, describing cognition-related psychoeducation needs in stroke survivors and/or family members aged ≥18 years (≥50% of the study population). Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and then full-text articles. One reviewer extracted pre-defined study characteristics and findings. These data were verified by a second reviewer. Synthesis involved descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. RESULTS: Searches identified 8115 articles, of which 30 were included. Articles were published between 1996 and 2023. Studies were conducted in Australia (n=7), USA (n=6), UK (n=5), Canada (n=3), New Zealand (n=3), Ireland (n=2), Netherlands (n=2), South Korea (n=1) and Sweden (n=1). Most studies (n=21) used an exclusively qualitative approach but six combined qualitative and quantitative methods. The post-stroke period under investigation varied, including the acute/subacute stage (n=10) and the chronic stage (n=3), though many articles did not state the timepoint explicitly. Research was conducted with stroke survivors only (n=7), family members only (n=12) and both stroke survivors and family members (n=11). Qualitative analysis suggested participants wanted psychoeducation about cognitive impairment, including recovery expectations, treatment/therapy options and signposting to services/resources available. Hopeful information was important. Factors potentially impacting cognition-related psychoeducation needs were identified as time since stroke and family member relationship. Most articles focused on aphasia with very few studies considering other cognitive domains (eg, memory, attention, executive function). CONCLUSIONS: The need for psychoeducation regarding cognition is well evidenced throughout the post-stroke care continuum, though most research has focused on language impairments. Further research investigating other cognitive impairments (eg, impairments in memory, attention and executive function) is required.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.049 | 0.169 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.037 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".