Who, what, when, where, why, and how: A systematic review of the quality of post-stroke cognitive rehabilitation protocols.

Abstract

Rehabilitation research findings are not routinely incorporated into clinical practice. A key barrier is the quality of reporting in the original study, including who provided the intervention, what it entailed, when and where it occurred, how patient outcomes were monitored, and why the intervention was efficacious. To facilitate clinical implementation of post-stroke cognitive rehabilitation research, we undertook a review to examine the quality of intervention reporting in this literature. Four databases were systematically searched, identifying 27 randomised controlled trials of post-stroke cognitive rehabilitation. The quality of intervention protocol descriptions in each study was independently rated by 2 of the authors using the 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. Why, when, and where items were reported in more than 70% of interventions, what materials and procedures used was described in 50% to 70%, how items were described in approximately half of the interventions, and who provided interventions was reported in 22% of studies. No study addressed all 12 TIDieR items. "Active ingredients" that may further characterise an intervention and the potential mechanisms of action included restorative training, massed practice, feedback, and tailoring demands (present in approximately 50% of studies). Descriptions of intervention protocols are variable and frequently insufficient, thereby restricting the ability to understand, replicate, and implement evidence-based cognitive rehabilitation. Use of reporting checklists to address this barrier to research translation is a readily achievable and effective means to advance post-stroke care.