Patient-perceived factors influencing physical activity sensor use in stroke prevention and rehabilitation: a thematic synthesis protocol
Open accessAbstract
INTRODUCTION: While the putative benefits of "fitness trackers" continue to fuel a booming consumer market, results of device-based clinical interventions remain remarkably mixed. This study will explore factors influencing wearable physical activity (PA) sensor use in the context of stroke prevention and rehabilitation for older adults. The findings of this thematic synthesis will provide insights into factors influencing the use of PA sensors in stroke which may inform more effective device-based interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Thematic synthesis as a formal method described by Thomas and Arden can be used within a systematic review to synthesize primary qualitative research. Accordingly, the proposed study will systematically search bibliographic databases for relevant peer-reviewed papers and synthesize coded thematic data within included papers. The quality of papers will be assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research. Patterns in the text will be coded, preliminary data visualised, and higher-level analytical themes discerned to explain factors influencing the use of PA sensors in older stroke patients. DISCUSSION: This study does not require ethics approval. Results are expected to be available by June 2024. Data from the thematic synthesis will provide insights into barriers and facilitators influencing the use of wearable PA sensors in stroke and older adults at risk, and implications these factors have for the design of effective device-based interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systematic review registration: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020211472. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020211472.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Review methods were established a priori, as detailed in the published protocol.
“Review methods were established a priori, as detailed in the published protocol [10].”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 · Cited by 26,223 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Search result set and screening counts will be summarized in a PRISMA flow diagram [13].”
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & the PRISMA-P Group (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647 · Cited by 13,120 · see citing works
Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 · Cited by 9,312 · see citing works
Stroke risk factors, genetics, and prevention
Boehme, A. K., Esenwa, C., & Elkind, M. S. V. (2017) · Circulation Research · doi:10.1161/circresaha.116.308398 · Cited by 1,952 · see citing works
Encyclopedia of case study research
Mills, A. J., Durepos, G., Wiebe, E., & Aaltio, I. (2010) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.48-0043 · Cited by 1,471 · see citing works
Go, A. S., Mozaffarian, D., Roger, V. L., Benjamin, E. J., Berry, J. D., Borden, W. B., Bravata, D. M., Dai, S., Ford, E. S., Fox, C. S., et al. (2013) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0b013e318282ab8f · Cited by 1,294 · see citing works
Clarifying differences between review designs and methods
Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-28 · Cited by 1,063 · see citing works
Jakicic, J. M., Davis, K. K., Rogers, R. J., King, W. C., Marcus, M. D., Helsel, D., Rickman, A. D., Wahed, A. S., & Belle, S. H. (2016) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2016.12858 · Cited by 621 · see citing works
Ferguson, T., Olds, T., Curtis, R., Blake, H., Crozier, A. J., Dankiw, K., Dumuid, D., Kasai, D., O'Connor, E., Virgara, R., et al. (2022) · The Lancet Digital Health · doi:10.1016/s2589-7500(22)00111-x · Cited by 560 · see citing works
Wearable systems for monitoring mobility-related activities in older people: a systematic review
de Bruin, E. D., Hartmann, A., Uebelhart, D., Murer, K., & Zijlstra, W. (2008) · Clinical Rehabilitation · doi:10.1177/0269215508090675 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
Mudge, S., Stott, N. S., & Walt, S. E. (2007) · Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation · doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2007.07.039 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Ferguson, S., Friedland, D., & Woodberry, E. (2015) · Brain Injury · doi:10.3109/02699052.2014.1002109 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Jamieson, M., Monastra, M., Gillies, G., Manolov, R., Cullen, B., Lennon, M., Brewster, S. A., & Evans, J. J. (2017) · Neuropsychological Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/09602011.2017.1310658 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Dulmage, B., Akintilo, L. O., Welty, L. J., Davis, M. M., Colavincenzo, M. L., & Xu, S. (2018) · The American Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2018.05.019 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Barkin, J. S. (2008) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9780230584129_13 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Harris, P., & Maine, I. (2026) · JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · doi:10.2196/86915 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
“The methodology for this synthesis followed the prepub-lished protocol [10].”
Influential
- Authors
- Harris, P. T., & Maine, I.
- Affiliations
- The University of Melbourne (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Harris, Paul T.
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2024-04-30
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e0301983
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11060516
- OpenAlex
- W4396531046
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1
- FWCI
- 1.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
- Keywords
- wearable activity trackers, stroke prevention, stroke rehabilitation, older adults, barriers and facilitators, technology adoption
- MeSH terms
- Stroke Rehabilitation, Fitness Trackers, Wearable Electronic Devices, Humans, Exercise, Stroke
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
