5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis on psychosocial factors related to rehabilitation motivation of stroke patients

      review-article
      , PhD, , PhD , , MD
      Medicine
      Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
      protocol, psychosocial factors, rehabilitation motivation, review, stroke

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background:

          Rehabilitation motivation is more important than any other factor in terms of treatment effects among stroke patients. The goal of this study is to explore the variables related to rehabilitation motivation that affect treatment effects and analyze their effect sizes, in order to manage the psychosocial interventions required by stroke patients.

          Methods:

          Thirteen electronic databases will be searched from November to December 2020. The search terms will be composed of the disease term part (eg, “stroke”) and the intervention term part (eg, “rehabilitation motivation or rehabilitation factors related to motivation or self-efficacy or family support or rehabilitation adherence or achievement or psychosocial factors, including self-motivation, social support, psychological distress, rehabilitation adherence”). Selected studies the for systematic review and meta-analysis will include randomized, quasi-randomized, and nonrandomized controlled trials, and research programs on rehabilitation motivation; qualitative research and case studies will be excluded. The participants will be stroke patients. Two authors will independently assess each study for eligibility and risk of bias, and to extract data.

          Results:

          This study will comprehensively explore the psychosocial and physical behavioral variables related to the rehabilitation motivation of stroke patients and provide their priorities and effect sizes. In addition, we will report the magnitude of the correlation effect on the rehabilitation motivation of stroke patients according to each demographic variable.

          Conclusions:

          The conclusions of our study will provide effective evidence of psychosocial variables that influence the treatment outcomes of stroke patients.

          PROSPERO registration number:

          CRD42020207467

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence.

            This article introduces the approach of GRADE to rating quality of evidence. GRADE specifies four categories-high, moderate, low, and very low-that are applied to a body of evidence, not to individual studies. In the context of a systematic review, quality reflects our confidence that the estimates of the effect are correct. In the context of recommendations, quality reflects our confidence that the effect estimates are adequate to support a particular recommendation. Randomized trials begin as high-quality evidence, observational studies as low quality. "Quality" as used in GRADE means more than risk of bias and so may also be compromised by imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness of study results, and publication bias. In addition, several factors can increase our confidence in an estimate of effect. GRADE provides a systematic approach for considering and reporting each of these factors. GRADE separates the process of assessing quality of evidence from the process of making recommendations. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation depend on more than just the quality of evidence. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.

              Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (www.prisma-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Medicine (Baltimore)
                Medicine (Baltimore)
                MEDI
                Medicine
                Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (Hagerstown, MD )
                0025-7974
                1536-5964
                24 December 2020
                24 December 2020
                : 99
                : 52
                : e23727
                Affiliations
                Rare Diseases Integrative Treatment Research Institute in Wonkwang University Jangheung Integrative Medical Hospital, Jangheung-gun, Jeollanam-do, Republic of Korea.
                Author notes
                []Correspondence: Byeonghyeon Jeon, Rare Disease Integrated Treatment Research Center in Wonkwang University Jangheung Integrative Medical Hospital, 121 Lohas-ro, Anyang-myeon, Jangheung-gun, Jeollanam-do, Republic of Korea (e-mail: fr1771@ 123456naver.com ).
                Article
                MD-D-20-09970 23727
                10.1097/MD.0000000000023727
                7769317
                33350754
                ea612c50-df9e-48cb-8a7e-0f1d9eb1efec
                Copyright © 2020 the Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

                This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 (CCBY), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0

                History
                : 14 November 2020
                : 17 November 2020
                Categories
                6300
                Research Article
                Study Protocol Systematic Review
                Custom metadata
                TRUE

                protocol,psychosocial factors,rehabilitation motivation,review,stroke

                Comments

                Comment on this article