1. Exploring variation in the six-month review for stroke survivors: a national survey of current practice in England.
- Author
-
Holmes R, Ackerley S, Fisher RJ, and Connell LA
- Subjects
- Humans, England, Cross-Sectional Studies, Survivors statistics & numerical data, Survivors psychology, Stroke Rehabilitation statistics & numerical data, Surveys and Questionnaires, Female, Male, Stroke therapy
- Abstract
Background: The Six-Month Review (6MR) was introduced in the United Kingdom to provide a holistic, systematic review of the ongoing needs faced by stroke survivors. However, a theoretical underpinning regarding how it should work is lacking, potentially leading to wide variation in service provision. This study aimed to understand the current degree of variation in 6MR delivery across England and explore the potential driving factors., Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted via an online survey distributed to 6MR services within England. Data were collected over 12 weeks in 2023. Descriptive statistics were used to demonstrate the degree of variation in service delivery, and associations were explored between features of the 6MR service and contextual factors., Results: Ninety-two responses were received, representing approximately 53% of 6MR services in England. Wide variation was observed in relation to service structure, content and processes, and in how outcomes, experience and effectiveness are measured. A number of significant associations were observed between features of the 6MR and contextual factors, most commonly, in relation to the provider organisation., Conclusions: This study highlights the degree of variation in 6MR delivery across England. The provider organisation may be a driving factor for this variation that warrants further investigation. Future research should focus on understanding how, and under what circumstances, the 6MR works so that its effectiveness can be evaluated and best practice established., Competing Interests: Declarations. Ethics approval and consent to participate: All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations. Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the HEALTH Ethics Review Panel at the University of Central Lancashire (Reference number: HEALTH 0401 WP1). Informed consent was obtained from all participants. Consent for publication: Not applicable. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests., (© 2025. The Author(s).)
- Published
- 2025
- Full Text
- View/download PDF