The effectiveness of various models of primary care-based follow-up after stroke: a systematic review

Abstract

Aim: To systematically review studies reporting the effectiveness of various models of follow-up in primary care on a range of outcomes (physical, psychological, social functioning, or quality of life) for survivors of stroke and their caregivers.

Background: Stroke is a major cause of disability globally. Current UK policy calls for a primary care-based review of healthcare and social-care needs at six weeks and six months after hospital discharge and then annually.

Methods: Trials meeting the pre-defined inclusion criteria were identified by the systematic searching of electronic databases. Data were extracted by two independent researchers. Studies were rated using the McMaster University Quality Assessment Tool.

Findings: Nine randomised controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria were identified. These studies included interventions using stroke support workers, care coordinators or case managers. The methodological quality of the studies was variable, and models of care demonstrated inconsistent working relationships with general practitioners. Patients and caregivers receiving formal primary care-based follow-up did not show any gains in physical function, mood, or quality of life when compared with those who did not. Patients and caregivers receiving follow-up were generally more satisfied with some aspects of communication, and had a greater knowledge of stroke.

Conclusions: The limited quality of these studies and the lack of a sound theoretical basis for the development of interventions together highlight the urgent need for high-quality research studies in this area.